Ryan C. Baker

This decision resolves a family law trial between Tammy Sundberg and Kevin Sundberg, addressing the date of separation, equalization of property, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court determined the date of separation as September 7, 2020, and ordered an equalization payment, child support, and spousal support, with detailed analysis of income imputation, property division, and section 7 expenses.

The court also addressed the costs of a business valuator report and declined to order occupation rent or prejudgment interest.

The court heard a 6-day trial concerning parenting, decision-making, and child support for a 5-year-old child.

Key issues included primary residence during the school year, the parenting schedule, school attendance, medical and dental decision-making, and imputation of income to the mother.

The court found the mother's credibility lacking on serious allegations against the father and her income.

It determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father in Kitchener-Waterloo due to stability and existing support systems, maximizing the mother's parenting time with three weekends per month and one overnight.

Joint decision-making for medical and dental care was ordered.

The court imputed an income of $42,900 per annum to the mother, effective January 1, 2024, based on her earning capacity in medical aesthetics, and ordered her to pay child support of $392 per month if she remains more than 30 km from Kitchener.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent to provide his 2022 income tax return and for a qualified business valuator (CBV) to be retained to quantify his income for support purposes.

The tax return issue was resolved by consent.

The court granted the order for a joint CBV retainer, finding it necessary due to the complexity of the respondent's income sources (employment, rental, corporate) and inadequate financial disclosure.

The decision emphasized the income earner's burden to establish their income and the Family Law Rules' objective of fairness and efficiency.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' 8-year-old child to North Bay, which the father opposed.

The mother also sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought joint decision-making.

Following a 7-day trial, the court dismissed the mother's request to relocate the child, finding it was not in the child's best interests to move away from his father and extended family in the Kitchener-Waterloo region.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, finding the parties had a history of effective communication prior to the relocation dispute.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother for child support purposes, finding she was intentionally underemployed by choosing to be a stay-at-home parent.

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce spousal support, arguing his early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought an increase in support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that an event known and intended at the time of the original support order, such as early retirement, cannot later be relied upon as a material change.

The court emphasized that a support payor cannot voluntarily reduce their income to avoid spousal support obligations, and the focus remains on their income-earning ability.

The applicant, Mr. Van Eck, brought a motion for bifurcation in a matrimonial proceeding, seeking an initial trial solely on the validity of three domestic contracts.

He argued that upholding the contracts would preclude the respondent's claims for spousal support and equalization, saving time and costs.

The respondent, Ms. Pham, opposed the motion, arguing that bifurcation would cause prejudice and was not in the interest of justice, as the issues were complex and intertwined, particularly with her spousal support claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues regarding contract validity were not straightforward, a second trial would be inevitable due to the spousal support claim, and there would be significant duplication of evidence.

The court also noted potential prejudice to the respondent in assessing unconscionability without full financial disclosure and a determined separation date.