William H. Abbott

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife and respondent husband brought cross-motions for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and commercial property.

The applicant sought $1.5 million and an order that the balance remain in trust pending final equalization, while the respondent sought an equal distribution of the funds.

The court ordered $1.5 million released to the applicant, $1.25 million held in trust to secure potential equalization payments, and the balance released to the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce an original promissory note allegedly evidencing a $500,000 loan from his late father.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking to find the applicant father in breach of previous non-dissipation and disclosure orders, to impute his income for child support purposes, to summarily dismiss his spousal support claim, and to order reimbursement for post-separation household expenses.

The court found no breach of the previous orders.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduced income from his restaurant business was due to pandemic-related closures and not intentional underemployment.

The court also refused to summarily dismiss the spousal support claim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, and deferred the issue of household expenses to the trial judge.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The parties disputed the funding of their children's post-secondary education.

The children had significant RESPs and large informal trust funds gifted by their maternal grandfather.

The applicant father argued the children had the means to fully fund their education, while the respondent mother argued the parents should still contribute.

The court rejected both all-or-nothing positions, ordering that education costs be funded first by scholarships and RESPs, followed by a $7,500 annual contribution from the parents shared proportionally to their incomes, with the children funding the balance from their own means.

Following a settlement on parenting issues where the respondent admitted to a campaign of parental alienation, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant $146,013.55 in full indemnity costs, noting the respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation.

Additionally, the court varied a previous costs order against the applicant to $0.00, as it had been based on the respondent's false affidavit.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court rejected the father's argument that success was divided, noting that every request made by the father in the underlying motion was dismissed.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $17,000, taking into account the parties' financial means and the mother's reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded access to the parties' child, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

The court declined to expand access pending a court-ordered section 30 assessment, noting the father had delayed the assessment by failing to pay his share of the retainer.

The claims for spousal support and an advance equalization payment were dismissed due to conflicting evidence requiring a trial and the father's failure to comply with a prior financial disclosure order.

The parties separated in 2015 and continued to reside in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

At trial, the court determined the parties' net family property, including the division of contents, vehicle valuation, and date of marriage deductions.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and half of the post-separation capital expenses for the home, but not utilities.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of the home pending its sale and retained a right of first refusal to purchase it.

The payor brought a motion to change a 1999 spousal support order, seeking to terminate his $700 monthly payments upon his retirement at age 60.

The recipient opposed the motion, arguing she remained disabled and unable to work, and sought an increase in support based on the payor's post-separation income increases.

The court ruled that the recipient's psychiatric expert report was partially inadmissible for failing to comply with the Family Law Rules for litigation experts.

The court found the payor's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances and terminated the spousal support, noting he had paid support for 20 years—well beyond the duration suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for a 12.5-year marriage.

The applicant was successful on a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change and sought costs of $8,138.42 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the quantum was excessive and cited an inability to pay that would impact his child support obligations.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle lacked clarity to trigger full recovery costs, but noted the applicant acted reasonably by making an offer.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $4,500.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable as child support, as the underlying motion predominantly concerned access.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order to seek access to the child and terminate child support.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change on the basis that he was in continuous breach of previous court orders, including failing to pay child support and costs.

The court distinguished between striking pleadings before a final custody order is made and staying a defaulting party's motion to change an existing final order.

The court granted the applicant's motion, staying the respondent's motion to change until he pays $12,928.20 in outstanding costs and child support arrears.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final order requiring the respondent father to provide annual income disclosure and automatically adjust child support.

The father argued this was effectively a motion to change the final order and should be heard alongside his own motion to change based on material changes in circumstances.

The court held that seeking compliance with an automatic adjustment clause is a matter of enforcement under Rule 1(8), not a motion to change under Rule 15.

The court ordered that the mother's enforcement motion be heard before the father's motion to change, as delaying enforcement would undermine the integrity of the existing order.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to capture its post-separation increase in value, equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding a prior agreement provided a juristic reason for the respondent to retain the post-separation increase in value.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay over $120,000 in equalization, significant arrears for child and spousal support, and ongoing spousal support, finding the respondent and his family members lacked credibility regarding alleged debts and financial contributions.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The main issues at trial were parenting arrangements, decision-making authority, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in marginalizing conduct and attempted to alienate the children from the applicant father.

The court ordered a shared parenting week-about schedule and granted final decision-making authority to the father, subject to a detailed communication protocol.

On equalization, the court found that funds advanced by the mother's parents were a loan, and waived the father's equalization payment due to the mother's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of household contents.

The mother was ordered to reimburse the father for post-separation adjustments.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses following separation.

The respondent argued that the parenting arrangement met the 40 percent threshold for shared custody under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that support should be set-off.

The court held there was no genuine issue regarding retroactive support prior to June 5, 2015 and fixed arrears based on the respondent’s income, rejecting attempts to offset household expenses or costs against support obligations.

However, the court found that whether the 40 percent threshold would apply going forward and whether claimed s. 7 expenses were reasonable required a trial.

The balance of the summary judgment motions was dismissed.