3 total
The court granted an uncontested divorce and imputed median income rather than minimum wage to a non-disclosing payor for child support.
This was an uncontested divorce trial where the applicant sought divorce, sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and child support.
The respondent had relocated to Nigeria and did not participate in the proceedings.
The court granted the divorce and sole decision-making authority to the applicant.
A key issue was the imputation of income for child support, with the court rejecting the default minimum wage approach in favour of a higher, median-based imputation, considering the respondent's non-disclosure and relocation.
Retroactive child support was awarded, along with costs to the applicant.
Respondent denied property deductions due to habitual non-compliance with court orders and settlement agreements.
The Applicant and Respondent, divorced spouses, were before the court for a trial of an issue to determine the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.
The Respondent had unilaterally sold the property and sought to deduct various expenses and interest charges from the proceeds, despite a prior settlement agreement and court orders.
The court found the Respondent had repeatedly violated prior orders and a settlement agreement, disentitling him to anything but an equal division of the net proceeds.
The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant half of the net proceeds plus an outstanding costs award from a previous judgment.
The court determined the parties' separation date and found the respondent beneficially owned the disputed property.
This trial addressed property issues between divorced spouses, specifically the date of separation, the beneficial ownership of a property in Clarington, Ontario, and the existence of an alleged Nigerian property.
The court declared the separation date as January 1, 2014, accepting the applicant's evidence over the respondent's.
It found that the respondent was the beneficial owner of the Clarington property from March 6, 2008, entitling the applicant to equalization, and ordered the respondent to provide an accounting and refrain from dealing with the property.
No order was made regarding the alleged Nigerian land due to insufficient evidence.
Costs were awarded to the applicant.