Peter Shawn Mirsky

The Applicant, Ms. Davidson, sought costs after being the more successful party on a motion concerning exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, child support for two adult children, and compliance with a disclosure order.

The Respondent, Mr. Davidson, brought a cross-motion.

The court found Ms. Davidson more successful overall, having obtained orders for exclusive possession, sale, and child support based on imputed income.

While both parties exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, Mr. Davidson's was to a greater extent, particularly regarding disclosure.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 for Ms. Davidson, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Mr. Davidson.

In this family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, sale of other properties, temporary spousal and child support, and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent cross-moved for exclusive possession, leave to claim a constructive trust, sale of one property, and support orders.

The court granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered its sale, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld consent.

The court imputed an income of $82,000 to the respondent for temporary spousal and child support purposes.

The applicant's request to strike pleadings was denied, but the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure.

The respondent was granted leave to amend his pleadings to claim a constructive trust.

The Applicant father sought interim child and spousal support, imputation of income to the Respondent mother, and an order severing the divorce.

The Respondent mother cross-moved for interim child and spousal support, imputation of income to the father, and professional valuations of the father's assets and income.

The court imputed an income of $10,000 to the mother, declined to impute additional income to the father from gifts, ordered child support for one child (D.) and a s. 7 approach for another (Q.), and found the third child (A.) was not a child of the marriage for support purposes.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the high end of the SSAG.

The divorce was severed, and the mother's requests for professional appraisals were denied.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his two young children, while the Applicant Mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody and continued supervised access.

The court granted the Father unsupervised access, to be implemented gradually, finding no evidence to support the Mother's safety concerns regarding the Father's and his family's medical conditions or housing.

The Mother's request for interim sole custody was denied, with the court preferring to leave the final custody determination to a trial judge to avoid prejudging the issue.

Costs for the motion and cross-motion were awarded to the Father.

The respondent brought a motion to change a previous spousal support order, seeking increased retroactive and ongoing support due to the applicant's undisclosed severance payment and post-retirement employment income, alleging a material change in circumstances.

The applicant counterclaimed for a reduction in support, citing the respondent's remarriage.

The court found the applicant's failure to disclose severance payments and post-retirement income constituted a material change, and that severance pay was income for support purposes despite a property release clause in the separation agreement.

The respondent's remarriage was not deemed a material change.

The court ordered increased retroactive and ongoing spousal support for the respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim.

This application concerned the respondent's claims for an interest in two properties registered solely in the applicant's name, a division of RRSP assets, and spousal support, alongside the applicant's counter-claims for occupancy rent and specific household items.

The court found no evidence of a joint family venture, largely due to the parties' segregation of assets and financial responsibilities.

The respondent's claims for property interest, RRSPs, and spousal support were dismissed, with the court noting his lack of credible evidence, failure to disclose income, and "unclean hands" in attempting to shelter assets from child support obligations.

The applicant was awarded a net monetary sum for occupancy rent and personal property.