Tanya Road

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The court held a case conference to determine next steps in a complex family law dispute involving multiple proceedings, including a guardianship application.

The core issues were whether the applicant husband had the capacity to instruct counsel and to seek a divorce, and whether the parties desired to reconcile under s. 10 of the Divorce Act.

The court ordered a five-day trial to determine these discrete issues of capacity and reconciliation, imposing time limits on the presentation of evidence and placing the burden of proof on the applicant husband.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify a previous order enforcing signed Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The parties had disagreed on the terms of the formal order and attempted to insert newly negotiated terms regarding their separation agreement into the draft order.

The court rejected these additions, noting that the formal order had already been settled in the previous endorsement.

The court directed the respondent's counsel to submit the original draft order with only the specific amendments previously ordered, and clarified a prior costs award.

The moving party brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties, and preferably to enforce an unsigned Separation Agreement.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement were binding and in full force, as the responding party had already received over $2.1 million and monthly spousal support under its terms.

The court declined to enforce the unsigned Separation Agreement but settled the terms of the formal order enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs of $5,500.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child support after a shared parenting arrangement ended when the respondent relocated and began operating a dog‑boarding business that generated minimal income.

The respondent argued that support should be based on his actual business income.

The court found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed within the meaning of s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, noting his limited efforts to obtain comparable employment, the voluntary decision to invest his time and savings in a start‑up business with little anticipated income, and his historical earning capacity from long‑term employment.

Relying on prior earnings history and the principles in Lawson v. Lawson and Drygala v. Pauli, the court imputed income of $60,000.

Interim child support for two children was ordered retroactive to January 1, 2011 with credit for amounts already paid.