Vanessa Lam

This appeal concerns the determination of spousal support in a 14-year marriage between two high-income earners.

The appellant, a financial advisor earning over $2 million annually, challenged the trial judge's order requiring him to pay $20,000 monthly spousal support for 9.5 years to the respondent, a respirologist earning an imputed income of $550,000 annually.

The appellant argued the respondent had no entitlement to spousal support due to her high income and lack of economic disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the respondent had both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlements to spousal support based on her role in supporting the appellant's career advancement during the marriage, despite her own professional income.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay new orders issued by an Ontario Court of Justice judge pending appeal.

The motions judge had initially ordered the child to attend the father's preferred school, but later issued new orders changing the school to the mother's preference after realizing she had not considered all the evidence.

The motions judge also engaged in ex parte communications with the mother's counsel.

The Superior Court granted the stay, finding a strong likelihood of success on appeal due to jurisdictional errors, breach of natural justice, and reasonable apprehension of bias, and ordered the child to return to the father's preferred school pending the appeal.