Separation agreement

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking to reinstate the terms of a 2004 separation agreement regarding post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent father sought a retroactive adjustment for alleged overpayments of section 7 expenses.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed, operating a business at a loss for over 10 years, and imputed his income at $100,000.

The mother, who claimed disability without medical evidence, had her income imputed at $84,000.

The court ordered the child to contribute $1,750 to his education, with the parents sharing the remaining post-secondary expenses pro rata based on their imputed incomes.

In this family law trial, the court set aside a 2001 separation agreement after finding the parties' post-agreement conduct was inconsistent with an actual separation and that the respondent had been misled as to the agreement's true purpose.

The court fixed the separation date as August 2, 2010, declared the Brampton residence to be the matrimonial home, and ordered an equalization payment of $51,867.20, with sale of the home only if the payment could not otherwise be made.

The interim child support order was varied retroactively due to a material change in the respondent's income, but arrears were cancelled because of hardship and social assistance dependence.

Retroactive s. 7 expenses were denied as delayed and prejudicial, though future s. 7 expenses were ordered proportionately.

The respondent was awarded symbolic non-compensatory spousal support below guideline levels because the applicant bore almost all ongoing child-related expenses.

In a family trial concerning divorce, custody, and child support, the applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain retroactive and ongoing child support on the basis that the respondent's parenting time was below the shared-custody threshold.

The court held that the parties' informal domestic contract satisfied the statutory formalities and that there was no evidentiary basis to set it aside under s. 56 of the Family Law Act.

Applying the Ontario approach to s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court treated school, camp, and daycare time as neutral and found that physical custody was truly shared on a 50-50 basis.

Given the parties' similar incomes and expenses, no child support was payable, a divorce order issued, the respondent was required to maintain the children on available employment benefits, and there was no order as to costs.

On a motion to change, the applicant sought to set aside or vary spousal support terms in a self-drafted separation agreement filed for enforcement under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the support provisions produced unconscionable circumstances, the payor was in breach when the application was commenced, and the recipient remained a disabled and financially dependent former common-law spouse living in poverty.

Applying the statutory framework and consulting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court found the agreed duration was clearly inadequate and ordered ongoing support of $2,000 per month for four additional years together with continued extended health, dental, and life insurance benefits.

The order was made prospectively from May 1, 2015.

The applicant father, residing in British Columbia, sought to vary a child support obligation contained in a separation agreement filed under the Family Law Act.

The court found a change in circumstances based on the applicant's evidence of illness, work interruption, and reduced income, but accepted the respondent mother's request for updated financial disclosure.

Applying the law of the payor's ordinary residence under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, the court made a temporary variation order using the British Columbia child support table amount.

The hearing was adjourned for further disclosure, child support was temporarily reduced to $314 per month effective October 1, 2012, and the relevant support paragraph of the separation agreement was vacated effective that date.

Appeal from a family law summary judgment dismissing an application to set aside a separation agreement based on alleged material misrepresentation of date-of-marriage business assets affecting equalization.

The court held that, once deliberate material misrepresentation was assumed, the motion judge erred by shifting the onus to the recipient spouse to investigate the veracity of the disclosure; the burden remained on the disclosing spouse to prove actual knowledge of the falsehood.

The record contained genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the extent and deliberateness of the non-disclosure, the recipient spouse's actual knowledge, and related claims concerning spousal support, undue influence, duress and unconscionability.

The only issue finally resolved against the appellant was the claim that the agreement was unenforceable for lack of proper witnessing under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The parties separated after a 29-year marriage and negotiated a separation agreement.

The husband deliberately concealed assets and exploited the wife's known mental instability during negotiations, resulting in an equalization payment significantly lower than her statutory entitlement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that separating spouses have a duty to make full and honest disclosure of financial information.

The Court restored the trial judge's finding that the agreement was unconscionable and his order compensating the wife for the difference between the negotiated payment and her statutory entitlement.