Monique Rae Bennett

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings regarding net family property deductions, imputed income for child support, and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving his date of marriage deductions due to a lack of documentation.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's imputation of income, including capital gains, for child support purposes, nor in the modest spousal support award granted to the respondent.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving equalization, child support, and spousal support, the court determined outstanding issues of costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The court exercised its discretion under ss. 128 and 130 of the Courts of Justice Act to set a prejudgment interest rate of 2.6% on the equalization payment, starting from the date of separation and adjusted for advance payments.

In determining costs under the Family Law Rules, the court found both parties had engaged in bad faith conduct, but the respondent’s conduct—particularly repeated failures to provide financial disclosure and breaches of court orders—had significantly prolonged the litigation.

The court therefore awarded full recovery costs for the early phase of the litigation while reducing recovery for issues affected by the applicant’s own bad faith conduct.

Costs were fixed globally with a portion designated as a support order enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

In a contentious family proceeding concerning a child born in 2010, the court determined the payor parent's income for child support purposes where the payor resided and earned income in the United States.

Applying s. 20 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court calculated annual income using U.S. wage statements, rental income, allowable deductions, and an average annual exchange rate to convert U.S. earnings to Canadian dollars.

Retroactive child support was ordered to the date the claim was made, with arrears payable over time.

The court also determined the parties’ respective proportional contributions to section 7 childcare expenses after accounting for tax deductions and benefits.

Motions for contempt and for security for costs were dismissed.

The applicant moved for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules to enforce a handwritten settlement agreement signed by the parties.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing that his severe medical conditions and medications impaired his capacity to understand the agreement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

The court held that the expanded fact-finding powers available under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, and even if they did, the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's capacity required a full trial to achieve a full appreciation of the issues.

Following the parties’ divorce after a lengthy marriage, the court determined outstanding corollary relief issues including equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, and post‑secondary education expenses.

Numerous disputes arose regarding valuation of assets, alleged undisclosed property, rental income, and the payor spouse’s income for support purposes.

The court rejected several claims of hidden assets and imputed income in certain years where financial disclosure was unreliable.

Equalization was recalculated with various adjustments, and retroactive child support was ordered based on actual annual income including capital gains for child support purposes but not for spousal support.

Ongoing spousal support was reduced after the recipient spouse’s remarriage and imputed earning capacity.