Kathleen Bingham

The applicant and respondent were common-law partners for approximately 13 years who separated in June 2015.

Shortly after separation, the respondent sold the assets of his patient transfer business for over $5,000,000.

The applicant sought spousal support and a share of the sale proceeds.

The proprietary claims were resolved on consent for $1,220,000.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's continuing entitlement to spousal support on a primarily non-compensatory basis, finding the respondent's income ranged from $257,000 to $517,000 between 2020 and 2023.

The court rejected the applicant's claim that the respondent's conduct constituted a gross repudiation of the relationship under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing spousal support was fixed at $5,079 per month, with retroactive adjustments for 2020-2024, terminating June 30, 2027.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking enforcement of an accepted offer to settle dated July 15, 2022, which the respondent Kevin Niessen accepted on September 8, 2023.

The offer included an equalization payment of $950,000 to be satisfied through transfer of property.

The respondent failed to pay the equalization payment within the required 90-day period.

The applicant also sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of properties and enforcement of the equalization payment against properties owned by Rita Niessen and 20 Valley Communities Inc. The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of asset transfers and encumbrances to avoid satisfying the equalization payment, including fraudulent transfer of jointly-owned property.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the applicant, enforcing the settlement terms and declaring the respondent to be the beneficial owner of the disputed properties.

This decision concerns a motion to change parenting arrangements and child support for a seven-year-old child with special needs.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the child's autism diagnosis and a shift in primary residence to the father after the mother left for India.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, with structured parenting time for the mother.

The court also varied travel and child support provisions, imputing income to the mother based on gifts and her earning capacity.