Jason P. Howie

This judgment addresses the entitlement, quantum, and duration of spousal support, calculation of retroactive support, and child support following a divorce.

The court found the applicant wife entitled to non-compensatory spousal support due to income disparity, but not a strong compensatory claim.

Spousal support was set at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered to terminate on September 30, 2024, considering the applicant's re-partnering and efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Retroactive child and spousal support were fixed, with a tax adjustment applied to the lump-sum spousal support.

Despite the respondent husband being the more successful party on the merits, no costs were awarded due to his deliberate non-compliance with an interim support order.

This is a high-conflict family law trial concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for 16-year-old twins.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother and sought a "protective separation" order, granting him sole parenting time and decision-making with no contact between the mother and children for 90-120 days to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The mother sought to continue the existing 50/50 shared parenting and decision-making arrangement.

The court rejected the father's request for "protective separation," finding it extreme and not in the children's best interests, especially given recent positive progress in the children's relationship with the father under the current 50/50 arrangement.

The court found the mother did not engage in parental alienation but erred by allowing the children to dictate parenting time.

The court also found the father's expert witness, a social worker, to be biased and not neutral.

The court ordered the continuation of shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and awarded costs to the mother.

The applicant sought to vary spousal support payable under a 2012 separation agreement, claiming retroactive and prospective increases due to the respondent's significantly higher post-separation income earned in the United States.

The court found a material change in circumstances and increased prospective spousal support to $10,500 CAD per month, calculating the non-resident respondent's income as if he were a Canadian resident.

The court awarded retroactive support back to January 2016, the date of effective notice, but declined to award support back to the date of separation, finding no wrongful conduct by the respondent.

The applicant's claim for security for support was dismissed.

This decision addresses two motions within a partition and sale application concerning the distribution of property sale proceeds.

Annette Curtis sought immediate one-third distribution to each party, while Lenn Curtis sought to preserve the funds in trust or court pending an oppression application.

The court found jurisdiction under Rule 66.03.

Lenn Curtis's request was akin to a Mareva injunction, but the court found the test not fully met due to delay and lack of evidence of asset dissipation risk.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Partition Act, finding that the property issues were intertwined with the ongoing oppression application and that immediate distribution would be oppressive and cause hardship.

Consequently, Annette Curtis's motion for distribution was dismissed, and the funds were ordered to remain in trust or be paid into court, with the application adjourned to be heard with the oppression application.

The applicant father and respondent mother lived in California but jointly decided to relocate to Ontario, purchasing a home and shipping their belongings.

During the move, the mother travelled to Connecticut with their child and decided to separate.

The father continued to Ontario and later brought the child to Ontario for a visit, subsequently commencing a custody application.

The mother challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that despite the child not being habitually resident in Ontario, the court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) because the parties had a shared settled intention to move to Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

Following the breakdown of a long marriage in which the parties jointly operated a highly successful real estate partnership, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent unilaterally terminated the partnership, retained all commission income earned in 2011, and diverted partnership records and client lists, significantly impairing the applicant’s ability to continue in the business.

Although the applicant later chose to pursue a less profitable clothing business, the court held she was not entitled to ongoing spousal support because she voluntarily left a lucrative career in which she had demonstrated strong earning capacity.

However, the court found that transitional support was warranted due to the respondent’s unilateral termination of the partnership and the immediate economic disadvantage suffered by the applicant.

Lump‑sum transitional spousal support of $200,000 was ordered, along with ancillary orders relating to corporate asset distribution and trust funds for potential tax liabilities.