Jonathan Robinson

This appeal concerns the determination of spousal support in a 14-year marriage between two high-income earners.

The appellant, a financial advisor earning over $2 million annually, challenged the trial judge's order requiring him to pay $20,000 monthly spousal support for 9.5 years to the respondent, a respirologist earning an imputed income of $550,000 annually.

The appellant argued the respondent had no entitlement to spousal support due to her high income and lack of economic disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the respondent had both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlements to spousal support based on her role in supporting the appellant's career advancement during the marriage, despite her own professional income.

The court granted, in part, the applicant's motion for preservation and restraining orders over the respondent's assets in Ontario, a Mareva injunction over worldwide assets, and remedies for breach of court orders in a high-value family law dispute.

The respondent, who had moved millions of dollars out of Canada and failed to comply with multiple court orders, was precluded from further participation in the case, and a date for an uncontested trial was ordered.

The court declined to find contempt or impose a monetary penalty, but awarded full recovery costs to the applicant.

Following a family law trial with divided success on parenting and financial issues, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought $250,000, while the respondent argued for no costs or $50,000 in the alternative.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, including the impact of divided success, reasonable behaviour, and offers to settle.

Finding that neither party enjoyed a monopoly on success, neither beat their offers, and neither had a monopoly on reasonable conduct, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

This endorsement addresses remaining issues from a trial, including parenting terms, equalization payment, prospective and retroactive section 7 expenses, life insurance to secure support, retroactive spousal support, and post-separation adjustments.

The court ordered a six-month review of parenting terms, set out specific prospective section 7 expenses and their payment ratio (Father 69.4%, Mother 30.6%), and clarified university expense coverage for the first degree.

Retroactive section 7 expenses were denied due to a lack of documentary proof.

The Father was ordered to maintain $2.1 million in life insurance, reducible biennially.

No adjustment was made to retroactive spousal support for 2021-2022, as interim payments were deemed fair, but the Father owes $30,000 for 2023 underpayments.

Claims by the Father for HELOC interest and matrimonial home carrying costs were denied due to lack of proof and prior agreement.

Costs were left for the parties to resolve.

The parties, a high-income banker and a part-time physician, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning parenting time with their two teenage daughters, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged family violence and coercive control, while the father alleged parental alienation.

The court found neither extreme applied but noted the mother's diffidence in supporting the father's relationship with the children.

Respecting the children's ages and wishes, the court ordered daytime parenting time for the younger child but did not force the older child to participate.

The court imputed a full-time income of $550,000 to the mother but ordered the father to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for 12.5 years, alongside $24,661 in monthly child support.

The mother's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and partition and sale were ordered.

The moving party father sought to stay an arbitration award requiring him to pay over $1.8 million in retroactive child support and nearly $800,000 in costs pending his appeal.

The mother opposed the stay and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the court found the father raised serious issues to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm, noting his significant wealth and access to capital.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the child support award, granted a partial stay of the costs award, and ordered the father to post $75,000 as security for the costs of the appeal.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking an order finding the Respondent in breach of prior court orders related to disclosure and timetables, requesting a financial penalty for ongoing non-compliance, and a restraining order.

The court found the Respondent had breached disclosure orders from Justices Kiteley and Hood regarding an ISN file, a Bank of Nova Scotia loan, Mr. Bisceglia's file, and an EquiGenesis Report.

The court ordered a daily financial penalty of $2,500 for each day disclosure remains outstanding, effective April 1, 2022.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an interim motion for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to defer the issue to trial where she intends to request a time-limited order for exclusive possession.

The mother also asserted substantial claims for retroactive support and equalization payments, which could be satisfied by the father's interest in the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the immediate sale premature.

The decision emphasized the attenuated principles for interim partition and sale of a matrimonial home, requiring a holistic review that considers the best interests of the children and potential prejudice to the responding party's legitimate family law claims, such as exclusive possession or equalization.

The court noted the parties' prior promise to the children to allow them to remain in the home, the imminence of trial, and the lack of clear practical advantage to the father in an immediate sale, as proceeds would likely be held in trust.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add six new corporate and individual defendants (the "Proposed Defendants") and to advance claims for tracing remedies, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

The Proposed Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the new claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, asserting that the Plaintiffs had actual knowledge or ought to have discovered the claims earlier.

The court found that the Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge until receiving a second forensic report and that their diligence in waiting for this report was reasonable, thereby raising triable issues of fact and credibility regarding discoverability.

The court also determined that granting the amendments would not cause actual, non-compensable prejudice to the Proposed Defendants.

Leave to amend was granted, with the Original Defendants permitted to plead limitations defences.