Sarah Trach

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that reduced her spousal support and ordered its termination, arguing the trial judge erred in finding she was able to work and had not been diligent in seeking employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including the appellant's failure to provide objective medical evidence of her inability to work and her non-compliance with previous court orders to document her job search.

The court upheld the imputation of income and the spousal support order.

Following a 24‑year marriage, the applicant sought divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and relief concerning the matrimonial home and pension interests.

The court addressed whether the applicant could waive the survivor benefit under the respondent’s pension, the proper valuation of the matrimonial home, entitlement to occupational rent, and spousal support.

The court held that the pension survivor benefit constituted property that must be included in the equalization calculation and could not be waived for that purpose.

The matrimonial home was valued at $224,500 and ordered listed for sale unless the respondent purchased the applicant’s interest.

Occupational rent was denied, but ongoing spousal support was ordered based on need and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The applicants sought a restraining order against the respondents, requesting that they be restrained from directly or indirectly contacting the applicants or their child, and from coming within 200 metres of the applicants, the child, or their residences, schools, or places of employment.

The applicants alleged a history of domestic violence, harassment, and inappropriate conduct.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application with costs.

The court found no objective factual basis for the applicants' fears, noting that allegations of abuse and assault had not been substantiated by authorities, and that the applicants' evidence lacked credibility.

The court dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following a 17‑year marriage, together with orders requiring the respondent to maintain extended health coverage and life insurance designation.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued that support should fall below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to delay in seeking support, the applicant’s relocation and employment decision, and his assumption of joint debts.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no prejudice from the delay, imputing income consistent with the applicant’s recent employment, and concluding that the respondent’s financial circumstances allowed support within the SSAG range.

Interim spousal support was ordered near the lower end of the SSAG range.

Interim family law motions arising from a separation following a 13‑year marriage addressed parenting arrangements, support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and sale of the home.

The court declined to determine custody pending further information and the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer, but ordered an interim alternating weekly residence schedule for the child.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered based on the parties’ incomes and the circumstances of the marriage.

Requests for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and for a non‑removal order preventing relocation of the child were denied, while the parties’ agreement to list and sell the matrimonial home was incorporated into the order.

Interim family law motions arising from a separation following a 13‑year marriage addressed parenting arrangements, support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and sale of the home.

The court declined to determine custody pending further information and the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer, but ordered an interim alternating weekly residence schedule for the child.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered based on the parties’ incomes and the circumstances of the marriage.

Requests for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and for a non‑removal order preventing relocation of the child were denied, while the parties’ agreement to list and sell the matrimonial home was incorporated into the order.

A custody and relocation dispute involving a three-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate to Alberta with the child to join her current partner, while the respondent father sought sole custody or, alternatively, a restraint on relocation.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and permitted relocation to Alberta, finding that the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth, maintained a strong bond with the child, and had legitimate reasons for the move.

The father's involvement had been limited and sporadic, and his conduct was characterized by immaturity and lack of child focus.

Child support arrears were addressed and ongoing support was set at the guideline amount.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the imputation of income and a retroactive child support award.

The Court of Appeal found that the imputation of income was well-grounded in the evidence.

Regarding retroactivity, the court applied the principles from DBS v. SRG, noting the payor's deliberate non-disclosure of his true financial situation.

The court held that the 1997 notice to renegotiate child support constituted effective notice, which was not erased by a subsequent agreement based on the appellant's misinformation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 plus disbursements.