Nancy J. Iadeluca

The applicant sought an order for her expert, Paul Mandel, to provide testimony at trial regarding the respondent's income and business valuation, despite a conflict of interest arising from Mandel joining MNP LLP, a firm that had previously provided services to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing a conflict impacting Mandel's independence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering Mandel to testify, limiting his scope to his original report.

The court found no actual conflict of interest that would preclude Mandel's testimony, distinguishing expert witnesses from lawyers regarding conflict rules, and emphasizing the expert's duty of impartiality.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, payable by both the respondent and MNP LLP.

The Applicant mother's motion to bifurcate the trial was settled by consent.

The Respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking leave to compel the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home or to obtain a $200,000 line of credit secured against his share.

The court dismissed the Respondent's cross-motion, primarily because he failed to obtain prior leave as mandated by a previous court order.

Addressing the merits, the court found that selling the matrimonial home would prejudice the Applicant's claims and was not in the child's best interests.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to compel the encumbrance of the matrimonial home against the Applicant's objection.

The Mother brought a motion to compel the Father to undergo a psychiatric risk assessment as recommended by the court-appointed assessor.

The Father cross-moved to adjourn the motion pending disclosure and to appoint a different assessor for both parties.

The court found the assessor had the authority to direct the risk assessment but agreed with the Father's objection to the specific psychiatrist due to a potential conflict of interest.

The court also ordered both parties to complete disclosure before the assessment continued.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent father to undergo a psychiatric assessment under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, and for production of his former lawyer's file.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for production of the parties' marriage counsellor's file.

The court dismissed the motion for a psychiatric assessment, finding it unnecessary for the financial and contractual issues, and lacking evidentiary basis for parenting issues.

However, applying the amended Divorce Act, the court ordered a s. 30 Children's Law Reform Act parenting assessment on its own initiative.

The court ordered production of the respondent's former lawyer's file as he had waived privilege by pleading duress and lack of understanding regarding a separation agreement.

The court dismissed the request for the marriage counsellor's file, citing statutory privilege under the Divorce Act.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions for interim custody, access, and support.

The court addressed the temporary parenting plan, child support, and spousal support.

The parties had been living in a "nested" home post-separation, which led to significant conflict and negative impact on the children.

The court adopted a modified version of the Applicant's proposed parenting plan, which allocated more parenting time to the Applicant, and ordered the Respondent to attend counselling with a professional parenting specialist to improve his relationship with the children.

Child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and interim spousal support was ordered at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also made consent orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and division of proceeds.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a $2 million advance on an anticipated equalization payment under the Family Law Act.

The respondent acknowledged owing at least approximately $2.1 million after prior advances but resisted an immediate lump‑sum payment and proposed alternative interim payment structures.

The court applied the factors from Zagdanski v. Zagdanski regarding advances on equalization, including certainty of entitlement, financial need, and fairness to both spouses.

Finding little risk that the advance would exceed the ultimate equalization entitlement and that the respondent had the ability to pay, the court ordered a staged advance payment.

The respondent was required to pay $1 million within 14 days and his share of the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home upon closing.