Sarah Gulas

Following a motion where the respondent father successfully obtained an order for spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the father was overwhelmingly successful on the most important issues and acted reasonably, whereas the mother pursued unreasonable legal positions despite her claims of an inability to pay.

The mother was ordered to pay costs of $7,700 to the father, subject to a set-off for any previous costs owed by the father.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The father had been out of the workforce since 2011 and was entirely financially dependent on the applicant mother.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to impute income to the father for child support.

The court found the father established entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The court declined to impute income to the father at the interim stage, noting his lack of employment history over the past decade.

The mother was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $2,800 per month, and her cross-motion for child support was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought to relocate their 10-year-old son from Toronto to Naperville, Illinois, due to a job promotion.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court determined the burden of proof was shared, as the child did not spend "vast majority" or "substantially equal" time with either parent.

After a holistic assessment of the child's best interests, considering relocation-specific and general factors, the court denied the mother's relocation application.

The court found the father discharged his burden that relocation was not in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the impact on the child's relationship with the father, disruption to schooling, and the mother's willingness to foster a meaningful co-parenting relationship.

Joint decision-making was ordered, and a divorce was granted.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) initiated a default hearing seeking an incarceration clause against the payor for child support arrears.

The payor opposed the incarceration term, arguing his conduct did not meet the threshold of wilful and deliberate disregard required by appellate caselaw.

The court reviewed the payor's history of non-payment, periods of unemployment, and subsequent compliance with varied support orders.

The court found that despite historical defaults, the payor's recent voluntary compliance and lack of aggravating conduct did not warrant an incarceration term.

The FRO's request for an incarceration clause was denied, and the default application was dismissed on a without prejudice basis, allowing the FRO to re-commence proceedings if future defaults occur.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.