William R. Clayton

Following competing family law motions, the court requested submissions on costs.

The applicant argued that she had been more successful and sought costs pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent submitted that the result reflected mixed success and that no costs order should be made.

The court found that both parties achieved partial success on the issues, including preservation orders and limited access to funds, and that neither party could be said to have prevailed overall.

Accordingly, the court declined to award costs.

The responding party brought a motion seeking temporary child support, contribution to special expenses under s. 7 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, and temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the payor under s. 19(1) of the Guidelines given evidence of assets, inconsistent financial disclosure, and claimed business downturn.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought but imputed income of $72,000 based on the payor’s budget, asset holdings, and limited financial disclosure.

Temporary child support, spousal support, and contribution to special expenses were ordered retroactive to October 1, 2012.

In a family law proceeding following separation, both parties brought motions regarding access to and preservation of joint investment assets pending resolution of property and support issues.

The applicant sought exclusive monthly withdrawals from a joint investment account and preservation of the respondent’s assets, while the respondent sought division of the account or equal access to it.

The court declined to divide the account at this stage but ordered interim monthly withdrawals from the joint account of $6,500 to the applicant and $3,000 to the respondent.

The respondent was also permitted to withdraw $200,000 to address outstanding debts, credited against his eventual share.

A preservation order was granted over the parties’ assets to maintain the financial status quo pending further proceedings.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support after one of the children moved in with him.

The responding party mother sought a review of spousal support, retroactive and prospective section 7 expenses for their daughter's competitive dance, and distribution of RESP funds.

The court found the father had manipulated his corporate income and imputed additional pre-tax corporate profits to him for support purposes.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at $4,000 per month, though the mother was required to make efforts to become self-sufficient.

The mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of notice, but prospective expenses were ordered.

The RESP capital was distributed between the parties.

The applicant and the respondent separated in 2006.

The respondent died in 2010 before the trial concluded.

The applicant converted her family law claims into a dependant's relief claim under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The estate was insolvent, but the respondent had a $1 million life insurance policy naming his daughters as beneficiaries.

The court found the applicant was a dependant entitled to adequate provision and awarded her a lump sum of $430,000 from the life insurance proceeds, after accounting for equalization, child support, and occupation rent.

The balance of the policy proceeds was ordered to be paid to the daughters.