Lindsay Karpetz

The parties sought a determination of their respective incomes for child support purposes following a joint parenting arrangement.

The court held that a $20,000 general damages settlement received by the applicant from her former employer was income for child support purposes because she used the funds for living expenses.

For the respondent, a real estate agent, the court excluded RRSP withdrawals that were quickly re-deposited, but imputed income for commissions he voluntarily forewent when acting on real estate transactions for his new wife.

The court ordered straight set-off child support based on the determined incomes and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs thrown away for parenting claims the applicant had advanced and later withdrawn.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking financial disclosure, an advance on equalization, and costs.

The Respondent provided some disclosure and the advance payment just before the motion hearing, rendering the advance payment request moot.

The court found the Applicant largely prevailed due to the Respondent's "11th hour" compliance, which was deemed unproductive.

The court ordered the Respondent to provide the remaining disclosure within 15 days and pay $10,000 in costs to the Applicant, finding the requested $25,000+ to be unreasonable for a one-hour motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This case involves competing interim parenting motions in a high-conflict family litigation.

The Respondent Mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Hamilton to Woodbridge, alleging family violence.

The Applicant Father sought the child's return to Hamilton and joint decision-making, denying abuse.

The court, facing conflicting affidavit evidence and a young child, adjourned the Applicant Father's motion until a s.30 assessment was completed.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the Respondent Mother and granted the Applicant Father supervised parenting time, adjusting the schedule to reduce transit time.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the difficulty of interim mobility motions, and the need for caution with conflicting affidavit evidence.