P. Mahdi

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage during which the applicant stayed home to care for their two children while the respondent worked as a police officer.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's entitlement to retroactive and ongoing spousal support, as well as retroactive child support.

The court found a strong compensatory claim for spousal support and ordered the respondent to pay $1,550 per month, subject to a review in five years to assess the applicant's progress toward self-sufficiency.

The court also calculated retroactive support arrears, crediting the respondent for certain expenses paid post-separation, resulting in a net retroactive payment of $9,764.70.

Following a family law trial in which the applicant was entirely successful, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $70,000 in costs relating to the trial and a prior settlement conference.

The court found that the respondent’s reluctant disclosure and shifting positions on equalization increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court determined that $45,000 represented a reasonable costs amount and ordered the respondent to pay that sum forthwith, with half enforceable as child or spousal support and subject to deduction from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, sole custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent husband sought joint custody, shared residence, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding the respondent lacked the maturity to prioritize the children's needs.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $200,000 due to undisclosed cash income and personal expenses paid by his business, ordering table child support and $3,500 monthly in indefinite compensatory spousal support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $228,217 to the applicant and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The parties, who agreed to joint custody of their nine-year-old son, proceeded to trial to resolve the parenting schedule during school holidays and issues regarding extracurricular activities.

The father works rotating shifts as a police officer, and the school-year schedule generally followed his days off.

The court ordered a summer schedule that accommodated the father's vacation picks while ensuring the child did not go more than nine days without seeing the other parent.

The court also established alternating schedules for major holidays and ordered that extracurricular activities, including ice hockey, require mutual consent if they impact both parents' time, with costs shared proportionately under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.