M. Clarke

The applicant brought a motion to change child and spousal support, which was ultimately settled by consent after three years of litigation.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by ignoring previous court orders, lying about his employment termination, and filing a baseless Law Society complaint against her counsel.

The court found the applicant acted in bad faith and ordered him to pay $70,000 in costs, with 80% enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage.

The husband, a contractor, claimed a constructive trust over rental properties registered in the wife's name, which the court dismissed, finding no unjust enrichment and applying the statutory equalization framework.

The court also dismissed the wife's claim that funds advanced by her mother were loans, classifying them as gifts.

Due to the husband's extensive history of unreported income, the court imputed his income with a 1.85 gross-up for unpaid taxes.

The court awarded the wife $50,689.51 in retroactive child support and, notably, a $500,000 lump sum for spousal support to ensure a clean break and mitigate the risk of non-payment given the husband's financial non-disclosure.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $488,287.92.

Following marital breakdown, the court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes, retroactive spousal support obligations, and credits relating to children's educational expenses.

The respondent was a commercial real estate agent whose income fluctuated significantly and who failed to provide adequate financial disclosure for the most recent year.

The court drew an adverse inference regarding income and used a multi‑year average including the year of separation to determine income for support purposes.

The court also addressed contributions toward section 7 educational expenses, determining both parents remained responsible despite estrangement between the applicant and one child.

Spousal support was recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with adjustments for credits and child support obligations.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 10-year common law relationship.

The court determined issues of retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, access, and the valuation of a jointly held property.

The court imputed income to the respondent for the purpose of calculating retroactive child support due to undeclared cash income.

The applicant's claim for lump sum spousal support was dismissed as the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested nil support and no other basis was established.

The court found the parties engaged in a joint family venture regarding their home and valued the respondent's 50% interest at the date of trial using a 'value survived' approach.

The court also established an access schedule including Wednesday overnights and alternate weekends.