Nancy Fern Deskin

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 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.