S. Nadine Finbow

The parties cohabited for nine years and had one child.

Following separation, the respondent sought spousal support, equalization of net family property, and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court imputed an income of $65,000 to the respondent, who operated a cleaning business and received CPP disability benefits, finding she was intentionally under-employed by choice to prioritize her child and health.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding the respondent was self-sufficient and suffered no economic disadvantage from the marriage.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $125,747.88, maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy to secure child support, and pay 60% of section 7 expenses.

The respondent brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties, who cohabited for a significant period, had a complex financial arrangement involving a jointly-owned company and the applicant's employment income, which was historically split.

The respondent sought to continue the equalization of income, arguing it stemmed from a joint venture.

The applicant acknowledged entitlement to non-compensatory spousal support but argued for imputation of income to the respondent and adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The court declined to impute income to the respondent at the interim stage due to conflicting evidence and the need for a trial.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for an equal division of income as a property claim not suitable for an interim spousal support motion.

Applying the SSAGs, and considering the respondent's disproportionate benefit from dividend income covering his rent, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent temporary spousal support of $2,000 per month.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant's claim for security for spousal support was dismissed.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the applicant, and relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant guilty of bad faith for intentionally sabotaging the respondent's personal injury claim and misrepresenting employment facts to the court.

Applying r. 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered full recovery costs.

Despite the respondent claiming over $22,000, the court fixed the costs at $15,000, emphasizing that even full recovery costs must be reasonable and proportionate, and requiring a detailed breakdown of hours spent.

The applicant sought an order for security for his spousal support claim, requesting $175,000 from the net proceeds of a rental property sold by the respondent to be held in trust.

The applicant, who had previously declared bankruptcy, claimed inability to work due to illness and alleged the respondent was voluntarily underemployed.

The respondent opposed, asserting the applicant was working and had sabotaged her personal injury claim, and that his spousal support claim lacked merit.

The court addressed evidentiary issues concerning the admissibility and authentication of emails, and the applicant's alleged perjury.

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding his inability to work and income lacked credibility.

It held that an order for security for spousal support requires at least a strong prima facie case for support and evidence of financial irresponsibility or wrongdoing by the responding party.

Finding no meritorious claim for spousal support and insufficient grounds for security, the court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered the release of the interim trust funds to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision permitting the respondent mother to relocate with their three children from Lion's Head, Ontario to a location within Bruce/Grey counties closer to her employment.

The father argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to give sufficient weight to the Views of the Child Report, and made a decision contrary to the children's best interests.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error and affirming that custody and mobility decisions are afforded great deference on appeal.