Michael Wonham

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

At trial, the court resolved outstanding financial issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court imputed income to the applicant wife for support purposes, finding she was underemployed in her home daycare business.

The court ordered the respondent husband to pay an equalization payment of $114,721.91, to be satisfied by a lump sum transfer from his pension, grossed up by 20% to account for future tax liabilities.

The court also ordered the transfer of a vehicle to the applicant to satisfy outstanding arrears and costs from a temporary order.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support, relying on a marriage contract signed in 2005.

The wife brought a cross-motion to dismiss the summary judgment motion and to determine the date of separation.

The court found that the marriage contract's property releases were ambiguous and did not constitute an absolute bar to equalization, creating a genuine issue for trial.

Regarding spousal support, the court applied the Miglin framework and found that the wife's catastrophic and unforeseeable health and financial changes since the marriage contract was signed created a genuine issue for trial as to whether the agreement still met the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the date of separation due to conflicting evidence requiring credibility assessments.

The husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought an order prohibiting disclosure of a court‑ordered Family Court Clinic assessment to two teenage children who were the subjects of the report.

Although s. 54(5) of the Child and Family Services Act generally requires that children aged twelve or older receive a copy of such reports, the court may withhold disclosure if satisfied it would cause emotional harm.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the sensitive and highly personal content of the multidisciplinary assessment concerning multiple family members, and the evidence from the society and parents that disclosure could destabilize the children’s progress.

The court concluded that disclosure at that time would likely cause emotional harm and undermine privacy interests of other assessed family members.

The motion was granted and disclosure of the assessment to the children was prohibited.

Following a motion addressing temporary parenting arrangements for a young child, the court was asked to determine the issue of costs.

The respondent mother sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was the successful party on custody, access conditions, appointment of the Children’s Lawyer, child support, and disclosure.

The applicant father argued that both parties had partial success and that any costs should be offset against alleged withdrawals from a joint account or deferred until the conclusion of the proceeding.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party but noted the applicant achieved limited success on access and information rights.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering fairness and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs.

On an interim parenting motion involving a young child, the court was asked to determine temporary custody and access in the context of highly conflicting allegations including abuse, parental alienation, and interference with access.

Police and child protection investigations had occurred, but the evidentiary record remained limited and untested.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis, the court emphasized stability, the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions, and the need to minimize parental conflict while preserving meaningful contact with both parents.

Temporary custody was granted to the mother with structured access to the father and restrictions relating to the paternal grandfather.

The court also ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assist in determining final custody and access issues.