V. Pohani

The applicant mother brought a motion to impute income of $75,000 to the respondent father and to determine her spousal support obligation, which she had been paying at $3,500 per month under a temporary agreement.

The father argued he was a stay-at-home parent during the marriage and had been out of the workforce for 18 years.

The court found a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement and imputed income to the father at minimum wage ($29,100), as he conceded he was intentionally unemployed but lacked recent experience to earn $75,000.

The court ordered the mother to continue paying $3,500 per month in interim spousal support and ordered the father to pay $500 per month in child support and a pro rata share of section 7 expenses for 2021.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' nine-year-old child from Grimsby to Ajax, Ontario, following her relocation to live with her common-law partner.

The parties previously shared joint custody with the child primarily residing with the mother.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the proposed move would significantly disrupt the child's life, particularly her close relationship with her father, stepmother, half-sibling, and extended family in Grimsby.

The court concluded that the relocation was not in the child's best interests and ordered that primary residence remain with the father in Grimsby, with the mother having liberal access.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage marked by domestic violence.

The applicant wife sought an unequal division of net family property, arguing the respondent husband forced her to sign a joint line of credit and recklessly depleted the funds both before and after separation.

The court found the husband's conduct unconscionable and granted an unequal division, ordering that the wife receive half the proceeds of the matrimonial home without deduction for the line of credit debt.

The court also addressed occupation rent, setting it off against the husband's mortgage payments, and ordered the husband's lawyer to return trust funds improperly disbursed to the husband.