Jaret N. Moldaver

In a family law proceeding concerning child and spousal support, the applicant brought a motion to compel financial disclosure and to strike the respondent’s motion to change an existing support order that had incorporated a prior arbitral award imputing significant income to the respondent.

The respondent asserted a substantially lower income and sought retroactive variation of support, while the applicant alleged the respondent’s income remained significantly higher and sought increased support.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure, expert reports, and arrears of support.

Rather than striking the motion to change, the court directed compliance with disclosure obligations, ordered payment of arrears, scheduled further case management steps, and set the matter down for trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties continued to reside together with their two children in a highly tense and hostile environment following their separation.

The court considered a psychotherapist's report indicating that the 16-year-old daughter was suffering from anxiety and depression due to the respondent father's behavior, which the court found amounted to psychological assault.

Applying section 24 of the Family Law Act, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to grant the applicant interim temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking disclosure from the respondent and a non-party family corporation to assist a retained valuator in assessing the respondent’s corporate interest and income for support purposes.

The court held that broad disclosure is appropriate where there are concerns that income from a closely held family business may be understated or manipulated.

Applying the “semblance of relevance” test and emphasizing the importance of full financial disclosure in family law, the court found the requested corporate and personal records relevant to valuation and income analysis.

The court ordered the respondent and the corporation to produce the requested documents and directed that the confidentiality agreement governing disclosure be amended to clarify that it also covered the valuator’s income analysis.

Following earlier motions in a family law proceeding concerning parenting arrangements, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to reach agreement.

The successful party had served a compliant and reasonable offer to settle before the motions and later provided a detailed bill of costs and a further settlement offer regarding costs, both of which went unanswered.

Applying rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered fairness, the parties’ conduct, and the effect of the unaccepted offer to settle.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

Total costs were fixed and made payable within sixty days.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought retroactive spousal support and interim funding for legal fees and expert disbursements to review the respondent’s financial expert reports.

The court considered evidence of the respondent’s significant income and complex business interests, as well as the applicant’s limited financial resources.

Applying the principles governing interim disbursement orders under rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized the need to level the playing field where one party controls financial information and resources.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,500 per month commencing July 1, 2012 and directed the respondent to pay all section 7 expenses for the children.

The court also ordered an advance of $75,000 for the applicant’s legal fees and expert costs to permit proper testing of the respondent’s financial evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time and an order restraining the respondent mother from making major decisions regarding their child without his consent.

The respondent mother sought an increase in temporary child support based on the father's new employment in New York.

The court granted the father's request for increased parenting time, noting the importance of overnight visits for young children to foster attachment.

The court also enjoined the mother from making major decisions without the father's written consent, distinguishing the case from situations where parents cannot communicate.

The mother's request for increased child support was dismissed as the father's potential bonus had not yet been received.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought an adjournment of the respondent’s motion to reduce a temporary spousal support order of $12,000 per month.

The respondent also sought relief including recharacterizing prior payments for tax purposes, disclosure orders, and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The court determined that the issues, particularly the respondent’s income and competing expert evidence, required a longer motion and that questioning and expert review should occur first.

The motion was adjourned and procedural directions were ordered regarding disclosure, expert meetings, and questioning timelines.

On a motion for interim spousal support following a 24‑year marriage, the court considered how to determine income where the payor spouse’s earnings fluctuated significantly due to cyclical real estate development projects.

The applicant argued that support should be based on a multi‑year average exceeding $2 million annually, while the respondent claimed current income of approximately $214,000.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the unusually high income in certain years was anomalous but also concluding the claimed post‑separation income decline was not adequately supported.

Considering historical earnings patterns, capital gains history, and the respondent’s own spending levels, the court imputed income in the range of $700,000–$800,000 for interim purposes.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $25,000 per month and made retroactive to January 1, 2012.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, seeking both ongoing support and retroactive support following the breakdown of a long-term cohabitation relationship.

The applicant also sought an advance payment of $50,000 in interim disbursements to retain a financial expert for trial.

The court dismissed the request for advance disbursements, finding the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to justify such relief or that he would be unable to proceed to trial without it.

The claim for retroactive support was also declined on an interim basis given the proximity of trial.

However, the court found a prima facie case of entitlement to support and ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month until trial.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The respondent conceded entitlement to temporary spousal support but disputed the amount and brought a cross‑motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and production of the applicant’s medical records.

The principal issue concerned the respondent’s income, which the applicant alleged was significantly higher than reported due to employment and trust income connected to a family business.

The court held that the respondent bore the onus of providing adequate disclosure regarding business performance, bonus calculations, and potential trust distributions.

Pending proper disclosure, the court ordered temporary spousal support of $12,000 per month based on the respondent’s last disclosed gross income of $431,693 and adjourned the motion for further evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking contribution from the respondent father toward children's special expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, as well as direct payment pending enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered whether various expenses—including extracurricular activities, swimming, skating, gymnastics, school lunches, and day camp—qualified as reasonable special expenses.

The court held that extracurricular activities and certain program costs were reasonable and consistent with the family's pre‑separation spending patterns, but declined to order contributions for school lunches and previously agreed summer camp costs.

The father was ordered to pay 80% of specified expenses and to contribute a monthly amount toward ongoing extracurricular costs pending trial.

Costs of the motion were awarded partially to the mother.

The father appealed a trial judgment that transferred custody of his 16-year-old son to the mother due to severe parental alienation and authorized the mother to take the son to a specialized reunification workshop.

A stay of the trial judgment was previously granted.

The mother brought a motion to set aside the stay, and the son brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay until the imminent appeal hearing.

The Court granted the son's motion to intervene, noting his age, the profound impact the order would have on his life, and the benefit of hearing his perspective, subject to terms preventing delay or the introduction of fresh evidence.

In a divorce proceeding, the husband's answer was struck out under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules for failing to obey three prior court orders requiring him to pay the wife $54,500.

The husband appealed, arguing that the wife's ability to withdraw funds from a joint mutual fund constituted compliance.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

However, noting that the answer included custody and access issues, the Court ordered that if the husband fully satisfied the orders by October 28, 2005, his answer regarding custody and access only would be revived.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.