Lisa Katz

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal and child support, retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance orders.

The Respondent sought lower spousal support and dismissal of the Applicant's other claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the Applicant and, for support purposes, excluded the Respondent's RRSP withdrawals from his income.

The court determined interim spousal and child support amounts, found two of the three adult children remained children of the marriage for support purposes, and ordered equal contribution to section 7 expenses after RESP exhaustion.

The Applicant's claims for retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance were dismissed.

This is an uncontested trial decision where the Applicant sought a divorce, reimbursement for mortgage contributions, compensation for unreturned personal belongings, and costs.

The court granted all requested orders, finding the Applicant's claims supported by the Domestic Agreement and uncontested evidence, and awarded full recovery costs due to the Respondent's refusal to engage.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for an equal shared parenting schedule and an order restricting the child's residence to within 20 km of the matrimonial home, after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with the child to Toronto.

The court found the father's evidence more credible, noting that the mother had misled her own witnesses regarding her support for shared parenting.

Applying the newly amended Divorce Act provisions on best interests and relocation, the court held that the mother's unilateral self-help measures were inappropriate and that an equal shared parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2-2-3 rotating schedule and required the mother to relocate the child's residence to within 35 km of the matrimonial home.

The appellant mother appealed an order finding her in contempt for allegedly manipulating her 16-year-old daughter into refusing to attend a March break vacation with the respondent father.

The motion judge had ordered a temporary change in custody as a remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, noting procedural errors, failure to consider all evidence, and an unreasonable conclusion on the record.

The Court also held that changing custodial arrangements is not an available remedy for contempt under Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules and cannot be used as punishment.