Judy Piafsky

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The parties were separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their children.

The applicant was paying all carrying costs for the home, joint debts, and children's expenses.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that interim support is generally not payable when the payor spouse covers all carrying costs while the parties reside together under the same roof.

The respondent was granted liberty to renew the motion once the matrimonial home is sold.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Emery J. dated May 26, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $1.5 million to the respondent father based on text messages and lifestyle.

The father argued his income was $146,655.50.

The court found the financial disclosure from both parties to be inadequate and applied 'rough justice' to determine income based on the parties' sworn living expenses.

The court imputed an income of $285,000 to the father and zero income to the mother, ordering temporary spousal support of $7,201 per month and child support of $2,271 per month.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to obtain $4.1 million in life insurance was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

The parties were scheduled for a settlement conference regarding equalization of net family properties and support.

Both parties filed extensive briefs but failed to comply with mandatory Family Law Rules regarding financial statements and net family property statements.

Both parties also claimed outstanding disclosure from the other.

The court held that a settlement conference is not the appropriate forum to resolve extensive disclosure disputes and that parties must come prepared and fully compliant with the rules.

The settlement conference was adjourned, with terms set for scheduling any future conference, including the requirement to resolve disclosure issues by motion first.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kril J. dated May 14, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a motion where the father successfully obtained joint custody and equal parenting time, he sought costs of $74,862 on a full indemnity basis.

The mother argued for divided success and claimed the father's fees were disproportionate.

The court found the father was entirely successful, beat his offer to settle, and that the mother had acted unreasonably by attempting to engineer a status quo in her favour.

While noting the father's legal fees were somewhat excessive compared to the mother's, the court recognized his success was largely due to the extensive evidence he marshalled.

The court awarded the father costs of $60,878 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant mother proceeded to an uncontested trial after the respondent father's pleadings were struck for failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the father based on his lifestyle, business activities, and failure to disclose.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, a lump sum spousal support payment of $227,186.65 due to the father's history of non-compliance and hiding assets, an equalization payment of $129,697.04, and costs on a full recovery basis.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support retroactive to the parties’ separation.

The court found that the respondent’s true income for support purposes could not be determined with certainty due to incomplete disclosure and competing assumptions in expert financial analysis.

Pending further disclosure, questioning, and expert reports, the court made an interim determination using the respondent’s expert’s income estimate of $1,050,703.

Temporary child support of $12,500 per month and spousal support of $26,000 per month were ordered, along with ongoing payment of certain family expenses.

The support orders were expressly subject to reconsideration once full financial disclosure and expert evidence were completed.

The respondent purchased a vehicle from a client to settle a debt, without obtaining proper documentation or inquiring about the vehicle's history.

The vehicle was later stolen, and the police discovered it had been previously stolen before the respondent acquired it.

The respondent filed an insurance claim, which the insurer denied on the basis that he lacked an insurable interest.

The trial judge and Divisional Court applied the factual expectation test and ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the factual expectation test does not apply to stolen property and that the respondent's willful blindness regarding the vehicle's origins negated any claim of good faith, thereby depriving him of an insurable interest.