Nancy Fern Deskin

The parties separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their two children, sharing parenting time equally.

Following the sale of the matrimonial home, the mother brought an interim motion to relocate with the children from mid-town Toronto to Thornhill, citing housing affordability.

The court found the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as it would significantly impact the father's relationship with the children by eliminating overnight visits and increasing travel time.

Applying the principles for temporary relocation, the court concluded the mother failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify the move on an interim basis, noting comparable housing was available in Toronto.

The motion was dismissed as the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The applicant wife brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking to continue a preservation order over the net proceeds of sale from a property owned by the respondent husband.

The husband sought to vary a prior consent order to release a portion of these funds to him.

The court continued the preservation order, finding the wife had a strong prima facie case for child support arrears and that there was a genuine risk of asset dissipation by the husband.

The husband failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis to vary the consent order, as the facts had not substantially changed and he did not meet the high onus required.

This trial decision addresses the financial issues between separated spouses, including child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and division of assets.

The parties had previously settled parenting issues.

The court made significant findings on the credibility of the Respondent, Michael, particularly regarding his employment history, alleged mental health issues, and a purported $100,000 loan from his parents, which the court found to be fabricated.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and found the Applicant, Kathryn, entitled to spousal support (with quantum to be determined later).

The decision also dealt with the division of timeshare units, valuation of vehicles, and various post-separation adjustments, ultimately favouring the Applicant's financial claims.

The applicant and respondent separated after a long marriage characterized by the respondent's controlling and abusive behaviour.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a pattern of non-cooperation, including refusing to sign closing documents for the sale of the matrimonial home, withholding the children's passports, and acting belligerently towards police.

At trial, the court addressed issues of decision-making, parenting time, child and spousal support, and equalization.

The court granted the applicant final decision-making authority but allowed equal parenting time on a 5-5-2-2 schedule, strictly conditional on the respondent attending psychological counselling.

The court imputed income to both parties, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds, and ordered the remaining proceeds to be equalized without deduction for the respondent's tax arrears.

The applicant husband's pleadings were struck for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent wife proceeded by way of an uncontested trial, seeking child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court imputed an annual income of $800,000 to the applicant based on his history of high earnings, hidden assets, and intentional underemployment.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $1,961,318 in support arrears, ongoing child and spousal support, and a $6,000,000 equalization payment.

Full recovery costs of $460,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to change spousal support terms set out in a separation agreement, seeking to terminate support based on a material change in circumstances.

Within this proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to retain an expert to value her self-employment income and to provide extensive financial disclosure dating back to 2016.

The court dismissed the request for an expert valuation, finding it disproportionate given the respondent's modest income compared to the applicant's.

The court partially granted the disclosure request, limiting the timeframe to August 2017 to December 2018, balancing the need for a full case with the prohibition against fishing expeditions.

The respondent in the underlying family proceeding sought a declaration that a costs sanction imposed for civil contempt had been extinguished by her discharge from bankruptcy.

The sanction arose from repeated breaches of court-ordered access involving the parties’ child.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the debt survived bankruptcy.

Applying s.178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court found the costs award constituted a sanction similar to a fine or penalty imposed for an offence and therefore survived bankruptcy.

The court also rejected the argument that the debt had been satisfied through alleged set-off for childcare, airfare expenses, or matrimonial property proceeds.