Kate Elizabeth 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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 24, 2022.

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.

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.

This case involved claims for divorce, equalization, and spousal support.

The parties resolved the divorce and equalization issues by consent.

The remaining issue was the quantum of lump sum spousal support.

The applicant, a 55-year-old permanently disabled individual, sought a $198,000 lump sum, arguing for imputation of income to the respondent and deviation from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

The respondent, a 60-year-old retiree, argued against income imputation and proposed a lump sum between $32,000 and $58,000 based on SSAG.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding his retirement involuntary and his earning capacity limited.

Instead of deviating from SSAG, the court extended the duration of support for calculation purposes, ordering the respondent to pay a lump sum of $76,100.

No costs were awarded.

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.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to extend the time to appeal an order that set aside a previous order and transferred the family law proceeding to London, Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the proposed appeal.

The court held that the original judge had jurisdiction to set aside her own order under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering the doctrine of functus officio inapplicable, and properly transferred the venue under the Family Law Rules.