R. Heft

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim disbursements, preservation orders, and to add the husband's father and his new company as parties.

The wife alleged the husband was hiding assets and intentionally bankrupting their previously successful business to avoid support obligations.

The husband claimed he and his business were insolvent.

The court found the husband's financial evidence suspicious and his conduct concerning, noting he paid creditors instead of supporting his family.

The court ordered $7,500 monthly in unallocated support, granted leave to add the father and his company as parties, and ordered various financial disclosures and preservation measures, but declined to impute an $800,000 income or order interim disbursements at this stage.

The parties were involved in a combined family law and civil trial.

The wife claimed the date of separation was January 2009, while the husband claimed October 2012.

The court found the date of separation was January 2009 and dismissed the husband's claims for equalization and spousal support due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and lack of evidence.

In the civil action, the court found the husband committed civil fraud by making false representations to the wife regarding funds from a diamond mining venture, resulting in a loss of over $1.2 million.

The court awarded damages for fraud against the husband and found his mother was unjustly enriched by receiving funds belonging to the wife.

The applicant husband requested an addendum to the trial judgment to include an inadvertently omitted divorce order and to reduce the amount of life insurance required to secure child support.

The court granted the divorce order.

Applying Katz v. Katz, the court also agreed that the original $1 million life insurance requirement could result in a windfall, as it exceeded the aggregate child support obligation.

The court amended the order, reducing the required life insurance to $400,000, with a further reduction to $100,000 when one of the children turns 16.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and equalization, the applicant sought costs of $79,000 while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably in rejecting the applicant's offers to settle, which were more favourable than the final judgment.

However, the court also noted the applicant caused delay by failing to properly account for date of marriage debts.

Considering the divided success on conduct and the respondent's limited financial means, the court awarded the applicant costs of $45,000.