Jolanta Barbara Bula

This motion concerned the applicant's request for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization.

The court granted most of the production orders, including the respondent's 2020 T1 tax return, TD bank summary statements, Sun Life share valuation at separation, and most documents requested by the applicant's forensic accountant.

However, the motion for an advance on equalization was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity of funds and the applicant's inability to cover the costs.

The court heavily criticized both parties for non-compliance with electronic filing requirements, practice directions, and proper presentation of evidence, ultimately ordering no costs due to divided success and non-compliance.

In a supplementary judgment following a family law trial, the court determined child and spousal support.

The applicant sought child support and the respondent sought spousal support.

The central issue was determining the respondent's income, as she had been a stay-at-home parent and received extensive, ongoing financial gifts from her parents throughout the marriage and post-separation.

The court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the respondent based on her underemployment and the consistent, substantial gifts from her parents that covered housing, vehicles, and living expenses.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on this imputed income, and was awarded spousal support at the low end of the Guidelines ($1,000 per month) for seven years.

The Applicant, Sarah Stoughton, sought costs following a 10-day trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, primary residence, and child support.

The Respondent, Jessica O'Ney, argued for no costs.

The court found the Applicant to be the successful party and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $19,000 inclusive of HST.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as only a small portion of the trial involved child support.

Additionally, the court determined the Respondent's 2018 income for child support purposes to be $27,889.40 Cdn and ordered monthly child support of $235 commencing September 1, 2019.

This judgment addresses a custody and parenting time dispute between two mothers, Sarah and Jessica, regarding their four-year-old son, Rory.

The primary issue was determining Rory's primary residence and school location, as the parents lived in different countries (Ontario, Canada and New York, USA) and the current equal parenting schedule was impractical for full-time schooling.

The court found joint custody inappropriate due to poor parental communication and awarded sole custody and primary residence to Sarah, with Rory to attend school in the Niagara Region of Ontario.

Specific parenting time was ordered for Jessica, along with child support.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 order, seeking sole custody of both children, a reduction in access, and child support.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence based on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendation to transfer primary residence to the father, finding the mother's home was now clean and the father exhibited alienating behaviours.

The court granted the mother sole custody of both children due to the parents' inability to communicate, but ordered that both parents have decision-making authority regarding religious practices while the children are in their care.

The existing access schedule was largely maintained, and the claim for child support was dismissed.

The parties separated after an 11-year cohabitation and marriage during which they operated a joint property maintenance business.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court preferred the applicant's evidence due to the respondent's failure to provide accurate financial disclosure and valuations.

The court determined the value of disputed assets, including a partially built home and business equipment, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $161,727.28 (as corrected in the addendum).

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, imputing an income of $80,000 to the respondent and ordering him to pay $800 per month for five years.