Sasha Faraone

The applicant wife sought temporary child and spousal support, payment of matrimonial home mortgage and line of credit, a certified business valuation, advance costs for a business valuator, and third-party records.

The respondent husband sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief and dismiss the wife's motions.

The court imputed an annual income of $250,000 to the husband and $15,000 to the wife, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support of $3,277/month, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support of $4,666/month.

The husband was ordered to continue mortgage payments and pay $20,255 in advance costs for the wife's business valuation.

Third-party records were ordered to be produced.

The divorce was severed from corollary relief.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs arising from a prior motion.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success, while the Respondent argued against any costs order, citing alleged improper conduct by the Applicant.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success, the acrimonious nature of the parties' interactions, and their limited means during the pandemic, in accordance with Family Law Rule 24.

The Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and mortgage deferral due to dire financial circumstances exacerbated by the pandemic, and for the respondent's signature on sale documents to be dispensed with.

The court granted the applicant's motion under the Partition Act, finding the motion urgent and the respondent's proposed alternatives unrealistic, despite the parties no longer being "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant sought to set aside a handwritten Consent (domestic contract) signed during a settlement conference, arguing under s. 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act that she did not understand its nature or consequences.

She claimed she was entitled to an unequal division of property as a management fee for looking after the parties' rental properties.

The court found the applicant's evidence not credible and contradicted by her own actions and her counsel's communications.

The court held that the applicant understood the contract and simply changed her mind because it did not provide for an unequal division.

The applicant's motion to set aside the contract was dismissed, and the respondent's motion to enforce it was granted.