Sheila Gibb

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and a preservation order.

The parties cohabited for a short period and had one child.

The applicant argued the respondent's declared income of $140,400 did not match his lavish lifestyle, which included luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive watches.

The court imputed an income of $400,000 to the respondent based on a lifestyle analysis and unexplained cash expenditures.

The court also imputed $50,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,553 per month, table child support of $3,099 per month, and granted a preservation order over the respondent's condominium and investment accounts due to a real risk of dissipation.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 13-year relationship.

The parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $72,000 per month, finding the applicant established a reasonable case based on the respondent's significant wealth and the parties' standard of living.

The court also awarded $200,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field in the high-conflict litigation, noting the funds were necessary to pay legal and expert professionals.

Following a motion for temporary spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the motion primarily concerned the quantum of support rather than entitlement, and the final order was closer to the applicant's offer to settle.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $4,149.36 on a partial recovery basis.

The father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Tennessee after the mother unilaterally removed them to Ontario.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children had no habitual residence and raising an Article 13(b) defence based on allegations of domestic violence.

The court found that the children's habitual residence was Tennessee, as the family had a settled intention to live there.

The court dismissed the mother's Article 13(b) defence, finding she failed to establish a grave risk of harm or that Tennessee authorities were incapable of protecting the children.

The motion for the return of the children was granted.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion to compel further production of documents and answers to undertakings from the respondent husband and his father, alleging they conspired to conceal the husband's income and assets.

The court dismissed the request for pre-2012 documents as irrelevant to the conspiracy claim.

However, the court ordered the mass production of post-2012 emails, finding the respondents' search terms too limited, and ordered the production of certain solicitor-client files, finding the father had waived privilege by relying on a specific privileged communication to defend against the conspiracy claim.

In a family law proceeding involving custody and access issues, the applicant sought a restraining order preventing the respondent from publishing or disseminating private intimate information about her on the internet.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Family Law Act to issue such an order where threats of online disclosure created psychological and emotional fear.

The court held that reasonable grounds to fear for safety can include psychological safety and that threats to publicly disseminate intimate information could justify a restraining order.

The court further held that s. 46(3) permits broader terms where appropriate, including restrictions on online publication.

A restraining order was granted pending further court order to preserve a reasonable atmosphere for litigation and protect the parties and child.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a consent order resolving parenting issues, the court addressed costs arising from competing motions and an adjournment.

The moving party had short‑served extensive motion materials seeking contempt findings, parenting changes, and financial relief.

The responding party argued that the motion was unnecessary and that the eventual parenting arrangement largely reflected the responding party’s earlier offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found the responding party to be the more successful party and concluded the motion could have been avoided through proper scheduling and conference procedures.

The court ordered costs in favour of the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary spousal support following separation.

The court implemented a temporary “week about nesting arrangement” to maximize the children’s contact with each parent pending development of a parenting plan.

Applying s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court found the applicant had at least a non‑compensatory entitlement to spousal support, leaving any compensatory claim to trial due to conflicting evidence regarding caregiving roles during the marriage.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she had made reasonable efforts to obtain employment.

Temporary spousal support was ordered together with interim financial obligations and life insurance security.