Kenneth Fishman

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

The respondent successfully opposed the confirmation of a provisional variation order made in Nova Scotia.

She sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and the applicant's conduct.

To afford the out-of-province applicant an opportunity to respond, the court remitted the matter back to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court under section 19(6) of the Divorce Act, granting the applicant 90 days to file written submissions on costs.

The applicant father sought to confirm a Provisional Variation Order from Nova Scotia that varied child support and post-secondary expenses under the Divorce Act.

The respondent mother opposed confirmation, arguing non-compliance with the Divorce Act and disputing the father's evidence regarding the children's residence and her financial contributions.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order, finding that the applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional requirements under section 18(2) of the Divorce Act and failed to prove a material change in circumstances, as the mother had been financially supporting the adult children directly.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the mother sought a declaration that the father breached a prior court order requiring him to make all reasonable efforts to support a shared parenting schedule.

Evidence showed the children had lived exclusively with the father for several years and had become estranged from their mother.

The court found multiple instances where the father failed to co-parent or support the residential arrangements, including unilateral decision‑making, permitting the children to determine their residence contrary to the order, and failing to meaningfully participate in court‑ordered reunification therapy.

A separation agreement resolving financial matters did not displace the prior parenting order.

The court declared the father in breach of the order but granted him sole custody given the children’s ages, the passage of time, and the existing status quo.