Michelle Sample

This decision addresses competing motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making responsibility between separated parents.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and supervised parenting for the father, while the father sought to maintain the status quo of equal time-sharing.

The court reviewed the evidence, including allegations of family violence, the children’s adjustment, and the parties’ conduct, and ultimately ordered a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, declined to order supervision, and directed the parties to arrange therapy for the child L1.

The court also excluded surreptitious recordings and improper reply affidavits.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage during which the respondent husband was the primary earner and the applicant wife was the primary caregiver.

Following a brief separation, the parties reconciled and signed a marriage contract granting the wife the matrimonial home and its contents in the event of a future separation.

The parties separated again, and the husband sought to set aside the contract on grounds of duress and unconscionability.

The court upheld the contract, finding no duress or inequality of bargaining power.

The court also determined equalization, imputed income to the wife, calculated the husband's income using a three-year average, ordered spousal support, and apportioned the adult child's educational expenses.

The respondent, Lorne Howard Albaum, brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, seeking to reduce his monthly payments from $65,625 to $24,340.

He asserted a catastrophic change in his income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and stock market impact, and challenged the applicant's (Donna Jodi Albaum) expenses and corporate income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Lorne failed to meet the heavy onus required to vary an interim order, as the issues raised were largely already considered by the previous judge or existed at the time of the original order.

The court also noted Lorne's lack of updated expert evidence and inconsistencies in his claims of hardship, given his continued privileged lifestyle and delays in litigation.

The maternal grandparents of the parties' daughter brought a motion to be added as parties to the proceeding and to continue litigation on behalf of the deceased respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proceeding was stayed under Rule 11.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondent's death and no Order to Continue had been obtained.

Furthermore, even if an Order to Continue had been obtained, the motion to add parties would fail under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules because all issues between the original parties had been settled by consent, and the grandparents' claim for access must be brought in a separate application.

This trial addressed several financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, primarily concerning the equalization of net family property.

The central dispute was whether a $125,000 promissory note, signed by the wife in favour of her mother related to the transfer of a matrimonial home, constituted a deductible debt or a gift.

The court found the transfer was not a gift and discounted the promissory note's value to 10% for equalization purposes.

Other issues included the valuation of household contents, the treatment of income replacement benefits, and post-separation house expenses.

The court ultimately ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment and contribution for house expenses.

The Respondent brought a motion for a Voice of the Child Report for their two children (aged 8 and 6).

The Applicant opposed on procedural grounds (judge recusal due to prior settlement conference involvement, and motion not suitable for Form 14B) and substantive grounds (lack of jurisdiction without consent, children too young, report's limited utility).

The court dismissed the Applicant's objections, finding that "issue" in Rule 17(24) refers to substantive matters, not procedural ones, and that Rule 20.1(3) provides jurisdiction to order such reports without consent.

The court deemed the report appropriate given the children's ages and the lack of progress in negotiating parenting time changes.

The motion for the Voice of the Child Report was granted, with the Respondent to pay 100% of the fees, and no costs were awarded for the motion.