Natasha Love

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding the validity of a marriage contract and denying relief for alleged physical injury and loss of income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to determine the contract's validity on motion, given the appellant's failure to read it and lack of material conflicts in evidence.

The court also upheld the denial of relief for injury, noting no spousal support claim was made and insufficient evidence.

The appellant's request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's discretion on costs, including those for conferences where the appellant was unprepared.

The trial primarily addressed child and spousal support obligations for the parties' two-year-old son.

The court determined the parties' incomes, including imputation for both the father's corporate income and the mother's personal income, finding the father deliberately under-employed and the mother earning unreported cash.

The court adjusted child support retroactively and prospectively based on imputed incomes and a new shared parenting arrangement.

Spousal support was ordered at a reduced amount from the temporary order, with an indefinite (reviewable) duration, and a significant overpayment by the father was ordered to be repaid by the mother through set-off against ongoing support.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant (mother) for temporary decision-making responsibility and child support.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $5,763.

The court considered two offers to settle made by the mother.

The first offer, which sought final resolution, was deemed not to attract the enhanced costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it extended beyond the scope of the temporary motion.

The second offer, made one day before the motion hearing to an unrepresented litigant, also did not attract the enhanced costs consequences, as the court exercised its discretion under subrule 18(14) to "order otherwise," finding that the timing of service was unreasonable and unjust, particularly given the respondent's self-represented status.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $4,400, payable by the father at $250 per month, considering the father's unreasonable positions during the motion and his ability to pay.