Judith Beth Piafsky

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking child support, imputation of income, and orders regarding the sale proceeds and carrying costs of a property.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent father due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and evidence of undisclosed income from his music career and frequent travel.

The court ordered retroactive child support, required the respondent to pay 50% of the property's carrying costs, and directed that the applicant receive 50% of the net sale proceeds with the remainder held in trust.

This endorsement from a settlement conference addresses financial disclosure and parenting issues.

Regarding financial disclosure, the court directed the parties' Certified Business Valuators to confer and agree on necessary disclosure, with any disagreements to be addressed at a subsequent conference or motion.

On parenting, the court vacated the applicant's scheduled summary judgment motion for final custody and supervised access, exercising case management powers under the Family Law Rules.

The judge emphasized that the custody issue was not urgent, and vacating the motion would encourage alternative dispute resolution and ensure proportionate use of court resources, especially given court backlogs and upcoming changes to the Divorce Act.

In a high-conflict family proceeding, the applicant sought summary judgment dismissing the respondent’s sole custody claim, stays of custody and support issues in favour of secondary arbitration, and an order setting aside an earlier medical decision-making order.

The court held that summary judgment was unavailable because there were material factual disputes, credibility issues, and evidence of post-award developments bearing on custody.

The custody arbitration stay was refused because the relevant clause excluded custody and mobility, and in any event arbitration would not serve the children’s best interests given entrenched parental conflict and the ongoing involvement of counsel for the children.

The support arbitration stay was also refused because the applicant had effectively attorned to the court process and a separate arbitration would create an unjust multiplicity of proceedings.

The respondent’s medical-records disclosure motion was dismissed as overreaching and unsupported by a sufficient evidentiary foundation.