J. Rechtshaffen

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, and a trust interest in the respondent's business based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to both parties, awarding spousal and child support based on those imputed incomes.

The court preferred the respondent's expert valuation of his business at nil and dismissed the applicant's claims for unequal division of property and unjust enrichment.

Equalization was ordered with a 25% notional disposition cost applied to the respondent's RRSPs.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to question the applicant's former family law counsel regarding the applicant's state of mind and receipt of legal advice prior to signing a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress and lack of independent legal advice, but opposed the questioning, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the applicant impliedly waived privilege by putting her state of mind and lack of legal advice at issue.

The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to attend for questioning and limited the questioning of the deceased's former counsel to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to find the respondent in contempt of two previous court orders regarding the preservation of business assets and the transfer of $160,000.

The court found that while the respondent breached the orders, he could not be found in contempt because one order was for the payment of money, and the other breaches were not deliberate due to COVID-19 business closures.

However, under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to transfer the $160,000 into trust within 30 days, failing which his answer would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant's request for third-party banking records.