Katharine Rajczak

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

Following a 17-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and child support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $948,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was overall more successful but denied full recovery because her offers were not as favourable as the final order on all issues, particularly regarding time-sharing.

Noting that both parties acted unreasonably at times and that the legal fees were completely disproportionate to the issues, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $125,000, with $50,000 enforceable as an incident of support.

At a case conference, the court addressed scheduling issues arising from the late delivery of the respondent's disclosure and expert reports.

The court directed that the applicant's motion for interim disbursements proceed in writing due to counsel scheduling conflicts.

The court also scheduled a combined trial management and settlement conference and declined to reserve the costs of the case conferences to the trial judge, ordering that neither party recover costs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' nine-year-old son, while the respondent father sought joint decision-making and increased parenting time.

The court found that the high level of conflict between the parents necessitated an order for sole custody to the mother, who had been the primary caregiver and had managed the child's significant academic and anxiety challenges.

The father's parenting time was expanded to include alternate weekends.

The court imputed income to the father, who had been voluntarily unemployed since 2010, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court also imposed strict safeguards on the father's ability to travel with the child to France to prevent international abduction.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed the timetabling of several outstanding motions in a family law proceeding.

Both parties sought to bring motions to vary a temporary support order.

The court declined to permit these motions to proceed, noting that temporary orders are not meant to be changed pending trial and that the respondent had failed to provide a complete financial statement.

The court scheduled the respondent's motion for production of a lawyer's file and the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, and set dates for a settlement conference and trial.

The applicant was successful in dismissing the respondent's summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding and sought costs of approximately $207,000.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive and proposed $31,000 plus HST, citing the applicant's alleged unreasonable behaviour and delay.

The court found neither party acted unreasonably and determined that partial recovery was appropriate.

After deducting fees for services rendered prior to the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $124,186 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife alleged that the husband failed to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his business interests and income, and that she signed the agreement under duress.

Applying the framework from Hryniak and the amended Family Law Rule 16, the court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the adequacy of the husband's financial disclosure and the wife's allegations of duress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

On a family law motion to set aside a default judgment granting equalization and substantial spousal support relief after an uncontested trial, the moving party argued that he failed to participate because he believed a later agreement had resolved the litigation and that the financial result was based on incomplete disclosure.

The court applied the family law three-part test for setting aside default judgment and held that the motion was brought promptly, the explanation for default was plausible though concerning, and there was an arguable case on the merits, particularly regarding valuation of assets, liabilities, and equalization.

The court emphasized the remedial nature of the Family Law Act and the importance of full and frank financial disclosure in family proceedings.

The default judgment was set aside except for the divorce, subject to strict disclosure deadlines, temporary spousal support, restoration of joint title to one property, and costs payable by the moving party.