Monika Joanna Curyk

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on imputed income, and a costs order.

The trial judge had drawn a strong adverse inference due to the appellant's "monumental and transnational" failure to make meaningful financial disclosure, imputing income of $130,000 (except $110,000 for 2020).

The appellant argued procedural unfairness regarding document admissibility and errors in income imputation.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant's own strategic decisions regarding evidence, and upheld the trial judge's findings on income imputation, dismissing the appeal.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a trial on parenting and support issues.

The applicant (mother) was the successful party and sought $13,500 in costs.

The respondent (father) did not make submissions.

The court reviewed the principles of costs, including the purposes of modern costs rules (indemnification, settlement encouragement, sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, ensuring justice) and factors under the Family Law Rules, particularly subrule 18(14) regarding offers to settle.

Although the mother's offer was reasonable, it did not attract the full costs consequences of subrule 18(14) because her spousal support offer was not as favourable as the trial result, highlighting the benefit of severable offers.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable due to non-compliance with orders and financial disclosure.

Considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay the mother $8,500 in costs, in addition to previously ordered costs.

The applicant (mother) sought parenting orders, child support, and spousal support from the respondent (father) for their 6-year-old daughter.

The father opposed these claims.

Due to the father's repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide financial disclosure, and history of assault and threatening behavior towards the mother, his Answer/Claim was struck.

The court proceeded with the trial, hearing the mother's evidence and the father's submissions.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and dispensed with the father's consent for travel and documentation.

Child support was ordered retroactively from July 1, 2021, based on the father's imputed income.

Spousal support was awarded on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, with a tiered amount and a fixed duration until December 31, 2029, starting January 1, 2022.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion to strike the respondent's (father's) Answer/Claim due to his repeated breaches of court orders, including failure to pay child and spousal support, provide financial disclosure, and pay costs orders.

The court granted the motion, striking the father's Answer/Claim, but provided specific conditions for its reinstatement, including payment of arrears and provision of financial disclosure.

The court also outlined the father's limited participation rights if the Answer/Claim is not reinstated, balancing the need for compliance with the child's best interests.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought $6,138 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court applied the four purposes of modern costs rules (indemnification, settlement encouragement, discouraging inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice) and considered factors under Family Law Rules subrule 24(12), including success, conduct, and offers to settle.

The applicant was deemed the more successful party, and the respondent's conduct, including contesting spousal status and making unsupported allegations, increased the motion's difficulty.

The court awarded the applicant $5,085 in costs, payable in installments, noting the respondent's ability to pay and poor payment history.

This motion concerned the amount of temporary spousal support payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The respondent initially disputed entitlement but later conceded, seeking support within the low to mid-ranges of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

The court determined the respondent's income by drawing an adverse inference due to his failure to provide updated financial disclosure.

The court found strong compensatory and non-compensatory grounds for spousal support, noting the applicant's economic disadvantage from the relationship and the respondent's financial irresponsibility.

Despite the respondent's significant parenting time, the court ordered spousal support at the higher end of the SSAG range.

This decision addresses the fixing of costs for an urgent motion and resolves two outstanding issues regarding the final order.

The court determined the order was final and preferred the respondent's proposed police enforcement clause.

For costs, the applicant sought substantial indemnity ($10,500), while the respondent proposed $950 or $3,500.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by resorting to self-help but not in bad faith.

It deemed the applicant's claimed costs excessive for a straightforward motion and awarded $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within thirty days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her two young children from the respondent father, who had unilaterally retained them beyond an agreed-upon access period, citing COVID-19 concerns and an alleged agreement.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the importance of enforcing existing court orders and discouraging unilateral "self-help" remedies.

It determined there was no agreement for the children to remain with the father and that returning them to the applicant's primary residence was in their best interests, given her reasonable pandemic precautions.

The applicant sought ongoing and retroactive child support and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses for two children from the respondent.

The central issue was determining the respondent's income for child support purposes.

The respondent, a self-employed truck driver operating through a numbered corporation, claimed minimal net income by deducting approximately 80% of his gross corporate income as business expenses, most of which were personal in nature and unsupported by documentation.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his actual earnings from his long-standing employment with a single company, added back unreasonable expense deductions, and grossed up the income to account for taxes that should have been paid.

The court awarded retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, finding the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by ceasing child support payments and failing to provide financial disclosure despite legal obligations.