Paul McInnis

The parties engaged in a family arbitration that resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay $450,000 in lump sum spousal support and $185,000 in costs.

The respondent appealed the award and brought a motion to stay its enforcement pending the appeal, while the applicant moved to dismiss or stay the appeal due to the respondent's failure to pay the award.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the arbitrator's findings of egregious financial non-disclosure by the respondent.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process but ordered that the respondent must comply with the support order by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

Following a family law trial with divided success regarding child support and section 7 expenses, the applicant sought costs of $82,001.61.

The respondent argued for no costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered cost consequences.

However, the court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs under Rule 24(7) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent's lack of preparation and late disclosure, which significantly prolonged the trial.

The applicant father sought to vary child support and section 7 expenses under a shared parenting arrangement, arguing that the incomes of both self-employed parties needed to be determined.

The court dismissed the variation application, finding that neither party provided sufficient or reliable financial evidence, such as expert income analyses or property appraisals, to determine their true incomes from their complex corporate real estate holdings.

However, the court granted the applicant's claims for the respondent's unpaid share of section 7 expenses, repayment of RESP funds, transfer of a time share property, and costs for failing to exchange family photographs as required by their prior Minutes of Settlement.

In a child protection proceeding, the court determined motions regarding medical decision-making authority and school placement for a child with ADHD and learning disabilities.

The mother sought to retain decision-making authority based on her historical involvement in medical decisions, while the father sought authority to make medical decisions, particularly regarding ADHD medication (Biphentin).

The court found both parents had acted contrary to the child's best interests by allowing parental conflict to cloud their judgment.

The court ordered both parents to jointly consult with an ADHD specialist and follow that specialist's recommendations.

The child was to remain in his current school pending further order.

The issue of which parent should have final medical decision-making authority was not determined on the motion but was to be resolved through further court process if the parties could not agree.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to impute income of $120,000 to the respondent mother for purposes of child support calculation.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to reduce her child support obligations on a temporary basis, citing material changes in her financial circumstances since the execution of the separation agreement.

The court found that the mother had established a material change in circumstances, with her business revenues declining dramatically from $247,061 in 2010 to $41,766 in 2013.

However, the court rejected the father's request to impute income, finding his explanations for the decline in business revenues plausible and supported by the materials filed.

The court granted the mother's motion on a temporary basis, reversing the direction of child support payments.

The mother brought a motion to change a default order made in 2011 that had reduced child support from $1,400 to $281 per month.

The father had obtained the default order on an unopposed motion after the mother failed to respond.

The mother sought to reinstate higher child support based on the father's actual financial capacity, arguing the 2011 order was based on incomplete and misleading information.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose that one child had autism requiring therapy, that his wife supported him, and that he maintained a luxurious lifestyle.

The court set aside the arbitration clause in the original consent order and ordered child support of $1,400 per month retroactive to July 1, 2013, based on imputed annual income of $115,000.

Following a 16‑year marriage, the applicant sought divorce, custody arrangements, sale of the matrimonial home, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought sole custody, spousal support, exclusive possession of the home, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the parties separated in July 2009 and ordered the sale of the heavily mortgaged matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

Joint custody of the twins was ordered with a staged parenting schedule based on a s.30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act, while the eldest child could arrange her own schedule.

The court attributed income of $536,000 to the applicant for support purposes, ordered child support of $5,000 monthly (interim pending review), and spousal support of $10,016 monthly.

The respondent was also granted an unequal equalization adjustment due to dissipation of assets.

The respondents in a family law proceeding brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an application alleging fraudulent conveyances and trust claims against a new spouse, brought to secure enforcement of spousal support arrears.

The applicant alleged that assets transferred to the new spouse, including real property and corporate shares, were held in trust for the support payor and were transferred to defeat recovery of indexed spousal support arrears under a 1999 consent judgment.

The court found the new civil action premature because a motion to change the spousal support order and determine arrears was already pending.

The court held that enforcement-related claims against the new spouse should await the determination of whether the payor remained liable for the arrears or whether the support order would be varied.

The action was therefore stayed pending the outcome of the motion to change.