J. Dhaliwal

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, arguing the respondent's income should include substantial funds he regularly received from his grandfather's company.

The respondent argued the applicant was intentionally unemployed and that the funds were gifts.

The court imputed a part-time income of $18,000 to the applicant, finding she could work despite her childcare responsibilities for their autistic child.

The court imputed $246,000 annually to the respondent, finding the family gifts were a settled pattern that entrenched their lifestyle.

The court ordered significant ongoing support and arrears, vested the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home in the applicant to satisfy an equalization payment, and ordered a charge on the respondent's condominium as security for support due to his history of deceit and risk of absconding.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody and week-about access of the parties' 11-year-old child, alleging the respondent father was alienating the child from her.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to retain temporary custody and major decision-making authority.

The court declined to change the child's living arrangements pending a section 30 assessment, noting the child's established school routine and the potential disruption.

The court ordered that the child continue to reside with the respondent father, with specified parenting time for the applicant mother, joint major decision-making, and child support payable by the applicant mother.