Harper

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage during which the respondent mother primarily stayed at home to care for the children and manage the household, while the applicant father upgraded his education and advanced his career.

The court determined issues of imputed income, retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court imputed a modest income to the respondent due to her health challenges and efforts to restart her career, and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive support arrears, ongoing spousal and child support, his proportionate share of extraordinary expenses, and to maintain the respondent on his health benefits.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 10-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal and child support, claiming the respondent misrepresented his income to lower his support obligations in 2005.

The respondent and his new wife operated a group of printing and labelling companies, maintaining they were separate businesses.

The court found the respondent and his new wife created a fiction of separate businesses to shield income.

Relying on expert accounting evidence, the court pierced the corporate veil, combined the operations, and imputed income to the respondent based on a 50 percent ownership of the joint venture.

The court awarded the applicant ongoing compensatory and needs-based spousal support, child support, and retroactive support dating back to 2006, fixing arrears at $160,322.

The court determined costs following a lengthy custody and access dispute where the applicant mother was found to have emotionally abused the children and engaged in severe parental alienation against the respondent father.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, litigating with impunity to excise the father from the children's lives.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the successful father full recovery costs fixed at $400,000.

The applicant child protection agency brought an application regarding three children, while the parents concurrently sought a divorce, custody, and property division.

Following a 154-day trial, the court dismissed the protection application, finding that the mother had made false allegations of domestic violence against the father and had a significant, unacknowledged alcohol problem.

The court awarded sole custody of the youngest child to the father, with restricted access for the mother, and ordered the mother to pay child support for all three children.

The court also determined that funds in the father's offshore account were held in a resulting trust and excluded from his net family property.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

During a brief reconciliation attempt, they negotiated a marriage contract.

The wife intended to give the husband one-half the value of the matrimonial home, but a drafting error in the contract gave him the full value.

The husband and his lawyer noticed the error but failed to seek clarification.

At the time, the wife was suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and hypomania, causing her to act recklessly.

The court found the contract void ab initio due to a lack of consensus ad idem on a fundamental term.

Alternatively, the court set aside the contract under the Family Law Act due to the wife's lack of capacity and unconscionability.

The court ordered an equalization payment, retroactive spousal support, and retroactive and ongoing child support.