Sarah Young

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.

The court considered cross-motions for interim spousal support, child support, interim disbursements, and a preservation order in the context of a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The Respondent (husband) sought spousal support and interim disbursements, while the Applicant (wife) sought to impute income to the Respondent, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the Respondent’s motion, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case for spousal support and that his financial disclosure was not credible.

The court imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes and granted the Applicant’s motion in part, awarding child support but not spousal support at this stage.

The court declined to make a preservation order or require leave for further motions but left open the possibility of such orders if non-compliance with costs orders continues.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making for his 11-year-old daughter following the mother's death from brain cancer.

The maternal grandparents, with whom the child had primarily resided for most of her life, opposed this, seeking to maintain the status quo.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, rejected the father's claim of a "right of joint custodial survivorship" and found that the child's need for stability and continuity favored remaining in the grandparents' primary care.

The court granted interim primary care and final decision-making to the grandparents, while establishing a parenting schedule for the father and ordering mediation.

Following a successful motion by the applicant, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent had failed to make offers to settle, moved assets to family members, and deliberately provided inadequate disclosure.

The court found the respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, which includes intent to conceal and inflict harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $39,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, extensive financial disclosure, preservation orders, and interim disbursements in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a complex corporate reorganization and failed to provide transparent disclosure regarding his assets and income.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the respondent based on the parties' lavish lifestyle and apparent diversion of funds.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim support, provide extensive corporate disclosure, and pay $100,000 as an advance for interim disbursements.

Preservation orders and certificates of pending litigation were also granted due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, seeking imputation of $200,000 income to the respondent, increased life insurance, disclosure orders, and costs.

The respondent, claiming unemployment and disability, opposed the imputation and other requests.

The court imputed an income of $74,977 to the respondent, ordered child support of $700 per month, and a 67/33 split for section 7 expenses.

The existing $100,000 life insurance policy was maintained, and the respondent was ordered to provide outstanding disclosure.

Costs for previous conferences were fixed at $10,000, to be apportioned by the trial judge, and the applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant moved to enforce a term of a separation agreement allowing her to discharge a mortgage on her home at two-thirds of its face value.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement entirely, alleging the applicant had fundamentally breached multiple terms regarding access, child support enforcement, and mediation.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that significant factual disputes existed regarding the alleged breaches, making it inappropriate to enforce the settlement on a summary motion.

The respondent was ordered to continue paying child support while pursuing his application to set aside the agreement.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion brought by the Applicant under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the Applicant securing significant asset preservation orders while the Respondent successfully resisted broader relief.

The Respondent's prior unreasonable conduct justified the Applicant's motion, but both parties acted reasonably during the motion itself and in their settlement efforts.

Considering these factors, the court awarded the Applicant full disbursements and approximately 50% of her legal fees.

The applicant sought interim orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets, alleging depletion of capital that would impair her equalization and retroactive support claims.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and the relief sought was excessive.

The court found that while reckless depletion was not proven, there was a real risk the applicant would be unable to collect on a significant judgment due to the respondent's financial arrangements and delays.

The court granted a more tailored interim order, preserving specific assets, requiring the registration of a certificate of pending litigation against a cottage, and mandating a $4 million bond or letter of credit, while allowing the respondent to conduct ordinary course business with reporting requirements.

The maternal grandparents of an 8-year-old child appealed an order granting custody to the mother and allowing her to relocate to British Columbia.

The grandparents obtained a stay of the custody order pending appeal from a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The mother sought a review of the stay order.

The panel set aside the stay, finding that the motion judge had relied on a misleading record containing fresh evidence that did not meet the Palmer test, and that the test for a stay was not met given the lower court's factual findings regarding the mother's capability and the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking a declaration that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, interim sole custody, and the child’s return from the United States after the respondent father refused to return the child following a visit.

The court considered the habitual residence provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principles governing interim custody, including the importance of maintaining the status quo and stability for the child.

The evidentiary record established that the child had lived primarily with the mother in Ontario since birth, with the father’s consent to extended visits in New York.

The father failed to file responding materials and did not attend the hearing.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction and granted interim sole custody to the mother with specified access to the father.