Rhea Kamin

The appellant appealed an interim order requiring him to pay $45,000 per month in spousal support, arguing the motion judge erred by failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) for a high-income earner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's case-specific analysis of the parties' means and needs.

The court noted that the SSAGs are not strictly presumptive for incomes over $350,000 and that interim orders are entitled to significant deference.

In this uncontested family law trial, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child, a final restraining order against the respondent, retroactive and prospective child support with imputed income, section 7 expense contributions, occupation rent, defamation damages, and restrictions on future proceedings.

The respondent's pleadings had been struck due to his pattern of non-compliance with court orders, abusive and threatening behaviour toward the applicant and child, and abuse of the court process.

The respondent engaged in domestic violence, property destruction, harassment through social media, and defamatory posts.

The court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible and relentless, warranting comprehensive protective orders and financial remedies.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary spousal support order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the sole issue of whether the motion judge failed to consider and apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Leave was denied on all other issues, including findings of fact and income determination.

The underlying decision was not stayed pending the appeal, and costs were reserved.

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay costs, and ongoing inappropriate conduct.

The respondent was precluded from participating further in the proceedings, and the matter was set down for an uncontested trial.

The court found the respondent's allegations of judicial bias to be without merit and determined that all lesser remedies had been exhausted.

This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.

The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).

The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.

Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.

The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action, which was dismissed after he failed to comply with two last-chance orders requiring disclosure and the payment of outstanding costs.

The Court of Appeal found no dispute regarding the non-compliance and noted the appellant failed to identify any errors that would permit appellate intervention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support and property rights.

After separation, the appellant husband sought equalization and spousal support, and requested the marriage contract be set aside under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent wife, finding the request to set aside the contract was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a request to set aside a marriage contract is a proceeding for a declaration where no consequential relief is sought, and is therefore not subject to a limitation period under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act.

The underlying claims for equalization and support remain subject to their respective limitation periods.

The applicant brought a motion seeking disclosure orders and interim payment for legal costs and an income valuation report.

The court found the applicant's claim of urgency unfounded, noting that delays were partly attributable to the respondent's complex financial holdings and the need to obtain records from third parties.

While acknowledging some outstanding disclosure, the court observed the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered specific disclosure, including a corporate structure chart, and an interim payment of $35,000 to the applicant for accounting/valuation costs, applying the criteria from Stuart v. Stuart.

All other relief sought by the applicant was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success and the precipitous nature of the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision concerning parenting arrangements for a 14-month-old child.

The maternal grandparents were granted temporary custody with limited supervised access for the parents.

The maternal grandparents sought costs of $30,932.17, while the parents requested no costs or costs fixed at $5,628.05.

The court found the maternal grandparents were successful parties entitled to costs but reduced the award significantly due to excessive time claims, the parents' limited financial circumstances, and concerns that the claimed amount could be used to intimidate the parents from pursuing legitimate positions.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing August 1, 2018.