Shawn Duguay

The mother proceeded to an uncontested trial on financial issues after the father's pleadings were struck for his repeated failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $200,000 to the father and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered an equalization payment to the mother and awarded her $100,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages for the father's prolonged and severe intimate partner violence.

The father was ordered to secure his support obligations with a life insurance policy.

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating their eight-year-old child from Petawawa to Stittsville.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking permission to relocate the child pending trial.

The mother had sold her home and purchased a new one in Stittsville without prior notice to the father, contrary to their separation agreement.

The court applied the principles for interim mobility, finding that the move would drastically disrupt the status quo and that there were genuine issues for trial regarding the father's involvement and the child's views.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and ordered that the child remain in Petawawa pending trial.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, as well as financial disclosure.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure and to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court ordered temporary child support for one adult child conditional on proof of post-secondary enrolment, and temporary spousal support based on a significant income disparity.

Both parties were ordered to provide specific financial and medical disclosure.

The request to sever the divorce was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.