Nancy Iadeluca

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The mother, a high-income anesthesiologist, sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their two children.

The father, an engineer, sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, as well as spousal support.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say on medical issues.

The father was granted regular parenting time, but the 14-year-old daughter's overnights were left to her discretion.

The father was awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $3,346 per month for a fixed duration, and the mother was ordered to pay 100% of the children's section 7 expenses, which was factored into the spousal support quantum.

During a family law trial regarding custody and access, the respondent father sought to introduce a surreptitious audio recording he made of a session with the court-appointed custody and access assessor.

The applicant mother opposed its admission on policy grounds.

The court held that while there are strong policy reasons against admitting surreptitious recordings in family law and of court-appointed assessors, the recording had high probative value to test the assessor's reliability and potential bias regarding a specific incident highlighted in her report.

The court admitted the recording for the limited purpose of cross-examining the assessor on that discrete incident.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to comply with the custody and access provisions of their parenting plan after their 13-year-old daughter refused to visit him.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the mother had not failed to openly support the parenting plan, and that the child's estrangement was largely due to the father's own conduct.

The court ordered family reunification counselling and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant moved to enforce prior disclosure orders, fix dates for questioning, and direct terms for the parties' IT consultants to confer.

The respondent sought an adjournment due to his principal counsel's trial commitments and late service of motion materials.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no unfairness to the respondent and noting the severe prejudice that further delay would cause to the scheduled trial management conference.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the requested electronic data, financial back-up documents, and a privilege log, and directed the IT consultants to confer without counsel present to facilitate the extraction of electronic evidence.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and an equalization of net family property, arguing that a 1998 estate freeze by the respondent husband's father was a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claim, finding no unlawful intention and noting the applicant was not a creditor at the time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $4,500 per month in spousal support for a maximum of 10 years.

The court also determined the value of the respondent's shares in the family business, applying a 30% discount for lack of control and deducting contingent taxes, and dismissed the applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property.