Stuart M. Law

The applicant mother sought to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement, alleging a material change in the respondent father's income due to undeclared cash, improper business deductions, and other sources.

The separation agreement had fixed the father's "estimated" income at $70,000.

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge her onus to prove a material change in the respondent's income for the years 2016-2021, except for a one-time top-up payment for 2020.

The court dismissed the application to change the separation agreement, emphasizing that the starting point for assessing actual income is line 150 of the tax return, and rejecting most of the applicant's claims regarding imputed income from cash, lifestyle, and business deductions.

Following an 8.5-year marriage and separation, the applicant (V.K.) sought sole custody and supervised access for their two children, while the respondent (A.K.) sought unsupervised access.

The applicant's request for supervised access stemmed from an incident where the respondent damaged property and breached an undertaking after an early case conference.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, granted V.K. sole custody but allowed A.K. unsupervised access for at least 35% of the children's time.

The court found insufficient compelling evidence to justify supervised access based on a single incident of property violence, but stipulated that any future violence would trigger an immediate review of the parenting arrangement and costs.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was also requested to become involved.

During a conference call in ongoing litigation between the parties, the court addressed procedural steps relating to a proposed motion for leave and a motion concerning affidavits of documents.

The responding party was permitted to prepare and serve materials seeking leave to bring a motion alongside the requested documentary motion.

The court directed that the materials be delivered to chambers by a specified date and scheduled a follow‑up conference call with counsel to review the materials and provide further direction.

In matrimonial litigation following a long marriage, multiple motions arose after the husband assigned himself into bankruptcy while substantial support and equalization issues remained unresolved.

The wife sought consolidation of related corporate litigation concerning ownership of a property, annulment of the husband's bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and related relief.

The court found significant overlap between the corporate property dispute and the matrimonial proceedings and ordered consolidation.

While the court expressed serious concerns about the husband's credibility and the bona fides of the bankruptcy, it declined to annul the bankruptcy due to evidentiary gaps but lifted the statutory stay to permit the matrimonial action to proceed to an expedited trial.

The husband's motions to vary spousal support and to sever the divorce from corollary relief were dismissed.

The moving parties sought judgment enforcing a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and declaratory relief under s. 97 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The dispute concerned the interpretation of settlement terms requiring an accounting of profits, dividends, management fees, and payments derived from a medical centre business, and whether certain legal expenses and management fees constituted benefits received or derived by the responding parties.

The court preferred the evidence of the moving parties’ expert accountant, finding that payments for legal fees and management services constituted benefits derived by the responding parties rather than excluded loan repayments.

The accounting determined that additional funds were owed under the settlement and that the responding parties were required to transfer shares in the corporation.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement terms and ordering payment of the additional sums and transfer of shares.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order after the parties' two children moved to reside primarily with him.

The parties consented to the change in primary residence and the applicant mother's new obligation to pay child support.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking retroactive increases to child and spousal support for the period before the children moved, arguing the respondent's income had increased due to overtime and bonuses.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the respondent had paid child support in accordance with the existing order, and that the fluctuations in his income were contemplated by the parties when they agreed to the original spousal support terms, thus not constituting a material change in circumstances.

Following an earlier endorsement ordering interim spousal support, the parties sought clarification on the tax treatment of payments, the commencement date for monthly support, and the termination date of a $4,000 dividend payment historically paid through the respondent’s company.

The court declined to account for tax consequences in calculating arrears or support, stating that tax treatment is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court clarified that the $20,000 monthly interim spousal support obligation was retroactive to November 18, 2010 and payable on the 18th day of each month.

The court further confirmed that the historical $4,000 monthly dividend payment was intended as a temporary measure and would end prior to May 1, 2012.

The respondent was credited for support payments already made when calculating arrears.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, a substantial advance on equalization, interpretation of a prior order regarding dividend payments, and a finding that the respondent breached an earlier court order.

The court applied the test for advances on equalization and held that the applicant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable need for additional funds and a minimum equalization entitlement capable of supporting the requested advance.

The court imputed the respondent’s income at $463,000 and ordered interim spousal support of $20,000 per month retroactive to separation.

The court also interpreted a prior order requiring continuation of historical payments to include a $4,000 monthly dividend payment and ordered arrears to be paid, but declined to impose penalties for breach.