Katherine Long

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to correct an oversight in a previous interim support order.

The original spousal support calculation failed to account for government funding that reduced the parties' section 7 expenses for their child's behavioural therapy.

After recalculating with the reduced section 7 expenses, the court increased the respondent mother's interim spousal support obligation from $1,966 to $2,980 per month and adjusted the parties' proportionate shares of the remaining unfunded expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to terminate previous preservation orders and for directions on property sale proceeds.

The court imputed the mother's income at $350,000, adjusting for unpaid business expenses and undeclared cash income.

The father's income was imputed at $50,000 due to intentional underemployment.

The mother was ordered to pay $3,722 in monthly child support and $1,966 in monthly spousal support.

The court also directed that the carrying costs of a jointly owned property be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule pending a section 30 custody and access assessment, seeking primary residence (8 out of 14 nights).

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence with the father having only 16.5 hours of access per week and no overnights.

The parties continued to reside separate and apart in the matrimonial home, creating a toxic environment.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence and text messages, finding both parents were actively involved in caring for the children, including one child with autism spectrum disorder.

The court gave little weight to surreptitious video recordings taken by the maternal grandparents.

Ultimately, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 equal time-sharing nesting arrangement where the children remain in the matrimonial home and the parents rotate in and out.

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.