Michael J. Polisuk

The appellant appealed a final family law order regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

She argued the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, exhibiting bias, and making unconscionable substantive findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary refusal of an adjournment or in her substantive findings, and rejecting the allegations of bias.

A minor transposition error regarding the proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses was corrected.

The appellant appealed a family law trial decision to the Divisional Court.

The trial judgment ordered periodic child support and spousal support payments that, in aggregate, exceeded $50,000 annually.

Although the parties agreed the Divisional Court had jurisdiction because only the spousal support (under $50,000) was being appealed, the court held that jurisdiction is determined by the total amount of periodic payments ordered in the judgment, not the amount in issue on appeal.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal.

Following the dismissal of the respondent’s motion in family litigation, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had been fully successful and sought substantial indemnity costs after prolonged litigation, multiple unsuccessful offers, and the respondent’s continued attempts to relitigate issues contrary to prior orders.

The court found the respondent’s conduct unreasonable, including bringing unnecessary motions and failing to comply with previous orders.

Applying proportionality and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $33,900 within 30 days and barred from bringing further motions until all costs were paid.

The former husband brought a motion to change a final consent divorce order, seeking reimbursement for various small financial claims totaling $9,270.31 and $50,000 in costs thrown away, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the former wife.

The former wife brought a cross-motion seeking annual confirmation of the former husband's life insurance policy.

The court dismissed the former husband's motion in its entirety, finding his claims invalid and his conduct defiant and litigious.

The court granted the former wife's request regarding the life insurance policy.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge declining to reinstate the proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The parties separated in 1998.

The respondent commenced an action in 1999, and the appellant counterclaimed for spousal support and other relief.

The action was dismissed for delay in 2003.

In 2011, the appellant commenced a new application for spousal support and other relief.

The motion judge stayed the entire application, finding the spousal support claim was statute-barred under the former Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the spousal support claim was statute-barred, subject to the appellant's right to seek an extension under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, lifting the stay on the other claims for relief and referring them back to the motion judge, as only interim spousal support was before the court.

The appellant husband appealed an order reinstating his pleadings on the condition that he comply with a disclosure order and pay $35,000 in interim disbursements plus costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the interim disbursements condition because the motions judge failed to provide reasons, consider the appellant's ability to pay, or give notice that this issue would be decided.

The conditions regarding disclosure and costs were upheld.

The husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

He argued the trial judge erred in excluding a $100,000 motor vehicle accident settlement from the wife's assets, finding he recklessly depleted $216,000 from a joint account, and in her treatment of date of marriage assets.

He also challenged the enforceability of a Maher agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual and credibility findings were supported by the evidence and she made no errors in law.

The appellant children's aid society appealed an order of the lower court in a child protection proceeding.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the paragraph of the order that required the society to assign a family worker familiar with American sign language.

The remainder of the lower court's order was confirmed, and the parties were encouraged to prepare a re-integration plan for the child prior to the resumption of school.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to expunge child support arrears that accrued while he was unemployed.

The motion judge had found the appellant intentionally unemployed and imputed income to him based solely on affidavit evidence without cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's uncontradicted affidavit evidence regarding his diligent job search without a trial or cross-examination.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay occupation rent, dismissing her claim for spousal support, and awarding the respondent $47,106 in trial costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the occupation rent award, finding the appellant's conduct delayed the sale of the matrimonial home.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in denying spousal support, noting the appellant was not required to deplete her inheritance to support herself, and awarded $23,200 in retroactive and future support.

Finally, the Court reduced the trial costs award to $20,000, balancing the appellant's poor litigation conduct with the divided success.