Sam Zaslavsky

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim orders to change the parenting schedule, obtain sole decision-making responsibility, and order child support.

The mother argued that the father's move further from the child's school constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the requests to change the parenting schedule and decision-making responsibility, finding the current routine was in the best interests of the child, who has autism.

The court ordered the father to pay the full table amount of child support, declining to apply a set-off for shared parenting time due to the significant income disparity between the parties.

The mother was also granted leave to amend her pleadings to claim spousal support.

Following an eight-day family law trial, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made two offers to settle, and the trial result was significantly better than her last offer.

The respondent argued against the costs claimed, citing various procedural steps and alleged hardship.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, noting his bad faith conduct throughout the proceedings, including hiding income, breaching court orders, and threatening the applicant.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $65,030.53 pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Following a 26-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, supporting her return to university to become a registered nurse.

Income was imputed to the respondent due to unexplained spending exceeding his declared income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay combined ongoing support, arrears, and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment, subject to post-separation adjustments owed by the respondent.