Lisa M. Walters

The applicant sought an order granting permission to obtain a transcript of a case conference held on September 11, 2023, claiming it was needed for clarity on the judge's oral directions regarding the respondent's professional corporation.

The respondent did not object to the release but expressed concern about the transcript being used as evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the presumptive confidentiality of case conferences, similar to settlement conferences, to foster frank discussions.

The court held that transcripts should only be released in extraordinary circumstances, such as threats to health or safety, which were not present in this case.

Differing recollections of discussions were deemed insufficient grounds for release, and any recommendations made at a case conference are not binding.

This family law motion addresses conflicting requests regarding the matrimonial home, spousal support, child support, and an advance for legal expenses.

The applicant sought the sale of the matrimonial home and spousal support, while the respondent sought exclusive possession and child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the respondent failed to discharge the onus to prevent sale, despite concerns for the children's mental health.

An advance of $40,000 from sale proceeds was granted to the applicant for legal fees.

The court ordered the applicant to pay child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount due to insufficient evidence for a s. 3(2)(b) analysis.

Spousal support was ordered for the applicant at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, considering the long marriage, career trajectories, and unequal childcare responsibilities.

The applicant sought an interim non-depletion order regarding an art collection, alleging a joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The court found that section 40 of the Family Law Act did not apply because there was no evidence that depletion would impair the spousal support claim.

The court also considered whether a Mareva injunction or an interim preservation order under the Rules of Civil Procedure was appropriate, but dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the particulars of the art collection, proprietary claims, and risk of depletion.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and the balance of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father had ceased participating in the litigation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding the previous shared-parenting arrangement had negatively affected the child's anxiety.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and directed that the remaining matrimonial home proceeds be paid to the applicant to satisfy outstanding costs and adjustments.