Patricia Gordon

The applicant brought a motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator resigned.

The respondents argued that the resignation terminated the arbitration process and the matter should return to court.

The court interpreted the parties' Mediation-Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, finding that a resignation constitutes a termination of the arbitrator's appointment, requiring the appointment of a replacement.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed replacement arbitrator and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 23-year traditional marriage.

The court imputed an income of $0 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income for support purposes to be over $2 million, adding back personal expenses paid by his corporations (including significant auto racing expenses for their son) and a portion of pre-tax corporate income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $45,000 per month and a further interim disbursement of $100,000 to allow the applicant to fund her litigation and expert fees.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child to include overnight visits, aiming for a 50/50 schedule.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing allegations of past family violence and requesting a mental health assessment of the applicant.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Divorce Act, noting that while there was evidence of high conflict and some violence during cohabitation, there were no concerns regarding the applicant's parenting post-separation.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding the applicant's parenting time to include two overnights per week on an interim basis, but declined to order a 50/50 schedule to maintain stability for the child.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' young child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support.

The mother alleged a history of severe domestic violence and raised concerns about a potential murder-suicide, arguing that the father's parenting time must remain supervised.

The court found that while there was some evidentiary basis for the abuse allegations, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child.

The court ordered a gradual transition from third-party supervision to supervision by the paternal grandmother, and then to unsupervised parenting time of 30 hours per week.

On the cross-motion, the court found the mother was entitled to interim support and ordered the father to pay $1,739 monthly in spousal support and $855 monthly in child support based on his 2018 income of $93,035, declining to impute higher income to him or any income to the mother at this interim stage.

Following a long motion regarding temporary parenting, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent wife was largely successful, having obtained primary residence, exclusive possession, and temporary support.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the wife's offers were closer to the final order.

The court also found the applicant husband acted unreasonably by refusing to vacate the matrimonial home despite having alternative accommodation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $19,200 in costs.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, an equal parenting schedule, a custody and access assessment, and to pay $5,000 per month in voluntary support.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the home, primary residence of the children, and $10,000 per month in uncharacterized support.

The court ordered a section 30 assessment due to the high conflict and the children's behavioural issues.

The court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children, finding it was in their best interests to maintain stability.

The husband's motion for the immediate sale of the home was dismissed.

The husband was ordered to pay $7,200 per month in temporary undifferentiated support.