Sarah Conlin

The wife brought a motion seeking the release of $500,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home to pay her legal and accounting fees.

The husband opposed the release and brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the wife's motion for alleged non-compliance with prior orders, requesting alternate security for his equalization claim, and seeking further disclosure and costs thrown away for cancelled questioning.

The court found the wife was not in breach of prior orders and granted the release of $500,000, noting the husband had already received a significant advance from the proceeds.

The court declined to order the wife to pledge her RRSP due to tax consequences but issued a general preservation order over her assets.

The court also ordered the wife to provide further disclosure, fixed dates for questioning, and awarded the husband $2,000 for costs thrown away.

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support and shared use of a Florida condominium following the breakdown of a 31-year marriage.

The core dispute involved determining the respondent wife's income from her corporation.

The court imputed the wife's income at $720,000 and the husband's at $180,000, ordering the wife to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support.

The husband's request for shared use of the Florida condominium was dismissed as he had alternative housing and timeshares available.

The applicant sought costs of over $1 million and pre-judgment interest following a complex 19-day family law trial where she was largely successful.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full recovery costs based on bad faith, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not reaching the threshold of bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $936,625 in costs and $195,000 in pre-judgment interest, noting the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct increased the complexity and length of the proceedings.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a 2008 separation agreement, alleging the respondent husband deliberately misrepresented the value of his business interests at the date of marriage to eliminate his equalization payment obligation.

The court found the husband, an astute investor, intentionally failed to disclose that the market value of his holding company's investments was significantly lower than the book value he presented.

The separation agreement was set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the parties' net family properties, finding the husband's date of marriage business value was nil, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $1,055,758.

The court also awarded retroactive child support of $345,000 and compensatory spousal support of $475,000, imputing significant corporate pre-tax income to the husband.

In a high‑income family law proceeding, the applicant sought temporary child and spousal support following separation.

The respondent argued his income had fallen significantly due to banking restrictions and business challenges and urged the court to base support on a projected income of approximately $1.6 million rather than his prior line 150 income exceeding $5 million.

The court held that, on an interim motion without oral evidence or credibility findings, the respondent had not established that his proposed lower income fairly reflected the money available for support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court therefore relied on the respondent’s 2014 line 150 income to calculate temporary support.

Temporary child support and spousal support were ordered accordingly.