Jerome Gardner

The parties separated in 2015 after a 16-year marriage.

The applicant sought retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and an equalization payment.

The respondent argued that his payment of the matrimonial home's carrying costs caused undue hardship and that his 2017 medical leave should reduce his support obligations.

The court ordered retroactive child support from August 2015, but relieved the respondent of his obligation for five months in 2016 due to undue hardship.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of child care and hockey expenses, finalized the equalization payment, and established a shared parenting schedule for the youngest child.

The applicant husband and respondent wife brought a motion and cross-motion following a 27-year relationship.

The husband sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and spousal support, while the wife sought the sale of the home and occupation rent.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home pursuant to the Partition Act, dismissing the husband's claim for exclusive possession.

The court awarded the husband interim spousal support of $2,315 per month, noting his lower income as an artist compared to the wife's income as a pharmacist, and ordered the wife to secure the support with a life insurance policy.

The wife's claim for occupation rent was dismissed because she had not paid spousal support since separation and the husband had housed their dependent children.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the temporary parenting schedule and for table amount child support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for shared custody and child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court declined to change the existing parenting schedule, finding no compelling evidence that a change was in the children's best interests.

The court held that the father did not meet the 40% threshold under section 9, as time the children spent in school or daycare was credited to the mother as the primary caregiver.

The father was ordered to pay the table amount of child support, with the issue of retroactive support adjourned to trial.

The parties brought competing motions for temporary custody, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father sought a 'Bird's Nest' order where the parents would rotate in and out of the home, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and exclusive possession.

The court dismissed the request for a 'Bird's Nest' order, finding it unnecessary and disruptive to the mother's home-based employment.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, granted her exclusive possession of the home, and ordered the father to pay child support based on an imputed income of $71,000.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to lack of objective evidence.