Lauren Conti

The applicant moved for summary judgment for ongoing child and spousal support, as well as arrears.

The parties had a traditional marriage where the applicant stayed home to raise the children, allowing the respondent to advance his career.

The respondent failed to provide income disclosure since 2021 and did not respond to the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, ordering the respondent to pay child support arrears, section 7 expense arrears, and spousal support arrears, while imputing minimum wage income to the applicant.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's last disclosed income, finding the applicant entitled to compensatory and needs-based support.

Following a motion addressing interim child support, interim spousal support, and interim access, the court issued a decision solely on costs.

The applicant had been successful in obtaining interim spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the complexity of the motion, counsel time, settlement conduct, and proportionality.

Although the successful party sought $4,000 in costs, the court found the claim excessive for a relatively straightforward interim support motion.

Costs were reduced to an amount considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

On an interlocutory motion in a family law proceeding, the moving party sought an order permitting the sale of jointly owned matrimonial property consisting of the matrimonial home and an adjoining parcel of land.

The responding party opposed the immediate sale and sought to preserve the opportunity at trial to obtain a vesting order transferring the other spouse’s interest in satisfaction of an anticipated equalization payment under s. 9(1)(d)(i) of the Family Law Act.

The court held that although a joint owner normally has a prima facie right to sale, when the property is a matrimonial home the moving party must demonstrate that the other spouse’s refusal is unreasonable.

In this case both parties ultimately contemplated sale, but disagreed as to timing and process.

The court permitted the sale to proceed subject to structured terms designed to allow the responding party an opportunity to purchase the property before listing and to ensure fair market value.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support and spousal support following separation after a marriage of approximately seven years, while the respondent sought interim access.

The parties resolved interim child support and access by agreement, leaving only interim spousal support for determination.

The court considered the parties’ respective incomes, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the respondent’s obligations to children in a new household.

Applying the principles from Fisher v. Fisher regarding responsibilities to second families, the court held that voluntarily assumed obligations toward a new partner and her children should not reduce the payor’s spousal support obligations to the first family, although the respondent’s obligations to his own two additional children were relevant.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range in light of the respondent’s additional child obligations and travel costs associated with exercising access from a remote community.