Kanata Cowan

This decision concerns an urgent motion brought by the father, Keven Moniz, seeking the immediate return of funds removed by the mother, Diane Filipe, from joint accounts following separation.

The court reviews the parties' financial circumstances, the history of their relationship, and the competing submissions regarding the urgency and fairness of the requested relief.

The court orders the mother to pay the father $75,000 as a partial repayment of his share of the joint savings, with further funds to be held in trust pending future proceedings.

Costs are awarded to the father, with a portion set off against a previous order.

Following a 36-day high-conflict family law trial where the applicant father was entirely successful on custody and child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought nearly $265,000 in costs, having spent $300,000 on legal fees, while the respondent mother spent over $200,000.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle triggered the presumption of full recovery under Rule 18(14) for certain issues, and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour significantly lengthened the trial.

Balancing proportionality, affordability, and the respondent's conduct, the court ordered the respondent to pay $192,000 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a separation agreement concerning child support and section 7 expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The dispute focused on whether certain extracurricular, school, medical, and communication expenses qualified as extraordinary expenses.

The court applied the test from Andrews v. Andrews requiring that section 7 expenses be extraordinary, necessary in the children’s best interests, and reasonable given the parents’ means.

Competitive swimming, school football participation, a school trip, uninsured medical and dental expenses, and children’s cell phone expenses were found to qualify as section 7 expenses.

The court also determined that a prior lump sum payment satisfied arrears up to the date of payment.

The parties separated in 2009 after a brief marriage and having one child.

They agreed to equal time-sharing of the child.

The court determined the dates of cohabitation and separation, and calculated the applicant's income for support purposes.

The court imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the respondent, finding she was intentionally unemployed.

The court ordered the applicant to pay spousal support of $5,000 per month for a fixed term based on a needs-based analysis, and child support of $1,615 per month based on a set-off of the parties' table amounts under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive support was ordered effective January 1, 2010.

Following a motion and cross‑motion in a family law proceeding concerning temporary parenting time and spousal support, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other.

The court noted that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the applicant obtaining increased time with the child and the respondent obtaining spousal support.

Given the mixed outcome and the parties’ comparable claims for costs, the court found that neither party should be rewarded with a costs award or required to pay the other’s costs.

The court therefore declined to order costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased temporary time-sharing with the parties' five-year-old daughter, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary spousal support.

Despite conflicting affidavit evidence, the court applied the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act and granted the applicant increased parenting time.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay temporary spousal support of $1,350 per month based on the parties' respective incomes and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.