Reesa Heft

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought an equalization payment, costs, and a divorce.

The respondent failed to participate, complicating the valuation of his Toronto Transit Commission pension.

After obtaining a court order dispensing with the respondent's signature and authorization from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the pension was valued.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $55,525.30 and costs of $7,500, to be satisfied entirely through a transfer from his pension pursuant to the Family Law Act and Pension Benefits Act.

The father brought a motion to retroactively vary child support, release trust funds, and order the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion to compel the father to retain an independent financial professional to determine his true income, citing unexplained bank deposits and his history of earning a high income despite alcoholism.

The court dismissed the father's motion for partition and sale, finding the mother established a competing right under the Family Law Act to preserve the home for herself and the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to appoint a financial expert under Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules and adjourned the father's motion to vary support pending the expert's report.

The moving party father brought a motion to vary a support order and for parenting time.

The responding party mother sought to dismiss the motion due to the father's serial non-compliance with previous court orders, including failure to pay nearly $200,000 in support arrears and costs.

The court found the father's motion thoroughly devoid of merit, noting his failure to comply with disclosure orders, his apparent bigamous marriage, and his hidden cash income.

The court dismissed the father's motion and ordered him to disclose details regarding his new marriage and residence, granting the mother leave to bring a contempt motion if he failed to comply.

The applicant brought a motion to adjust child and spousal support based on the respondent's actual income, which was higher than previously reported.

The respondent, who is self-employed, had a fluctuating income that dropped significantly in 2015 according to an expert report.

The applicant sought to impute income for 2015 based on a three-year average under section 17(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court ordered support based on the expert's income valuations for 2012-2014, but declined to average the income for 2015, instead using the expert's estimated lower income for that year and suspending spousal support.

At the resumption of a family law trial, the husband brought a motion for an adjournment because he was in India and unable to retrieve his passport to travel to Canada.

The court granted the adjournment but noted significant non-compliance by both parties with a previous detailed trial management endorsement.

To ensure the trial proceeded in an orderly fashion and concluded within the available time, the court imposed strict time limits pursuant to Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, allocating 35 hours to each party for all steps in the trial.