Kate Bennett

The respondent husband brought a motion for the release of his half of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, which were held in trust.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion seeking a preservation order to keep the funds in trust to secure her anticipated equalization payment, arguing she should not be forced to accept a transfer from the husband's pension.

The court balanced the interests of both parties, noting the husband's need for liquid assets and the wife's right to security for her equalization claim.

The court ordered a partial release of $150,000 to the husband, immediate payment of support arrears and costs to the wife, and directed that the remaining funds continue to be held in trust pending trial.

Following a 23-day family law trial where the applicant was overwhelmingly successful, she sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the offers were structured differently from the final award, making comparison difficult.

However, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial, the court awarded the applicant $115,000 in costs, with 40% designated as support-related for enforcement purposes.

The parties separated in 2008 and have two children, one of whom has severe autism requiring constant care.

The mother sought sole custody, retroactive child and spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father, who had been unemployed or underemployed since 2010, sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and the sale of the home.

The court granted the mother sole custody and exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's behavior abusive and controlling.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the father due to his intentional unemployment and ordered retroactive child and spousal support commencing July 1, 2012.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support and the respondent cross-moved to vary a temporary parenting schedule to increase his access.

The parties have a special needs child requiring constant care, limiting the applicant's employment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay mid-range temporary spousal support of $1,070 per month, declining to impute a higher income to the applicant or deduct the respondent's debt payments.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion to vary the parenting schedule, finding insufficient compelling evidence to alter the status quo pending the upcoming trial.