Stephanie Romano

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

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.

The Father brought a motion for summary judgment to declare a child support settlement binding and enforceable.

The Mother opposed, denying a binding settlement, and cross-moved for summary judgment to set aside any agreement, alleging it undervalued support and improperly waived support for one child.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as it would not be proportionate, expeditious, or less expensive, and could lead to inconsistent findings, especially concerning child support which is the right of the child and cannot be bartered away.

The court ordered further disclosure from both parties.

Jennifer Leitch sought an order to immediately list and sell the matrimonial home (the "Farm") without Anthony Novac's consent and to retain the net proceeds.

Anthony opposed, seeking to participate in the sale and have proceeds held in trust, with certain amounts paid to him for costs and chattels.

The court found Anthony unreasonably withheld consent by imposing conditions.

The court authorized Jennifer to sell the Farm with sole authority over negotiations and closing, subject to agreed-upon terms for listing and a minimum price.

The net proceeds, after payment of a $5,000 Divisional Court costs order, are to be released to Jennifer, rejecting Anthony's request to hold them in trust or for immediate payment of other claimed amounts, to ensure Jennifer's access to justice for ongoing complex litigation.

The appellant wife sought damages for conspiracy against her husband and his family, alleging they diverted business proceeds to reduce her support payments.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim and awarded substantial costs against the wife.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly bifurcating issues, misapplying the tort of conspiracy in the family law context, and making palpable factual errors regarding critical evidence.

The Court emphasized that the tort of conspiracy is a valuable tool to deter non-disclosure and ensure collectibility of judgments in family law.

The appeal was allowed, the partial summary judgment and associated costs orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reducing spousal support.

The appellant argued that the trial judge was premature in accepting the respondent's retirement and that there was no basis for reducing support if appropriate income was imputed to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge heard the evidence, reached conclusions available on the evidence, and properly applied the applicable legal principles under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize a final custody and access order from the United Kingdom as an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under section 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging breaches of the order and seeking to vary it.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mandatory criteria for recognizing an extra-provincial order were met and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the U.K. order was recognized.