W. Douglas R. Beamish

The applicant sought a temporary without prejudice order for child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the motion was barred by a marriage contract that effectively waived spousal support.

The court found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the contract under the Miglin framework, noting the applicant's inability to work due to cancer and caring for special needs children.

The court imputed an income of $965,000 to the respondent, who had become a non-resident for tax purposes, and ordered him to pay $3,952 per month in child support and $21,423 per month in spousal support, along with section 7 expenses.

The applicant husband brought a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage and exclusive possession of another cottage pending its sale.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and interim disbursements.

The court ordered the immediate sale of both cottages, finding no prejudice to Family Law Act claims, and granted the husband temporary exclusive possession of one cottage due to COVID-19 economic circumstances.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home pending a business valuation and ordered interim child support based on the husband's reported income rather than imputing income, given the uncertainties of the pandemic.

Parents brought competing motions concerning custody, residence, schooling, counselling, and access for their young child amid high parental conflict following separation.

The court found the father had engaged in conduct harmful to the child, including involving the older sibling in litigation and unilaterally terminating access for several months.

The court ordered that the child receive counselling with a qualified psychologist, authorized the mother to arrange educational and psychological assessments without the father’s consent, and required the parents to share counselling costs.

The father’s request to change the child’s primary residence and school was rejected due to the importance of preserving the status quo pending trial.

Access with the father was reinstated on a structured alternating‑weekend schedule with behavioural conditions.