Judy Piafsky

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.

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.