Zachary Wilson

This is Part 2 of a judgment resolving outstanding family law issues following initial findings.

The court determined retrospective and ongoing child and spousal support payments, the tax treatment of retroactive spousal support, and the duration of spousal support.

It also addressed equalization payment calculations, including contingent tax liabilities on corporate and cottage assets, and post-equalization adjustments related to a joint line of credit.

The court clarified that new expert reports not presented at trial could not be relied upon for proving contingent tax liabilities.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage.

The wife brought an application for property division, child support, and spousal support.

The court found that the husband had a 50% beneficial interest in a corporation registered solely in the wife's name, based on the presumption of resulting trust and the parties' intention to accumulate wealth jointly.

The court ordered the corporation's assets sold and proceeds divided equally.

The court also determined the husband's income for child support purposes by attributing a portion of the pre-tax income of his corporations to him, balancing his historical investment strategy with his support obligations.

The wife was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, with the amount and duration to be determined based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

This focused hearing determined the valuation date for the equalization of the parties’ net family property.

The applicant wife sought a valuation date of September 19, 2022, while the respondent husband argued for July 1, 2014, which would have statute-barred the wife's equalization claim.

The court, after a holistic review of the evidence regarding the parties' intentions and conduct, found that neither party intended to end the marital relationship or regarded the marriage as being at an end until September 19, 2022.

Consequently, the court set the valuation date for equalization purposes as September 19, 2022.

The respondent moved for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act after a lengthy separation.

The applicant opposed the motion on the basis of unresolved equalization, retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and the continued residence of adult children and an elderly parent in the home.

Applying the governing family law principles for interim sale motions, the court held that the moving party had a prima facie right to sale and that any legitimate prejudice to the opposing party's unresolved claims could be protected by withholding part of the moving party's equity in trust.

The court ordered the home listed for sale after 30 days, with $75,000 withheld from the moving party's half share pending final resolution.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues including custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization payment.

The court awarded sole custody of the child to the applicant mother, Xu Wang, but significantly expanded the respondent father, Wan-Peng Sun's, parenting time beyond her proposal.

The judge criticized the mother's conduct in limiting access and found her stalking allegations against the father unsubstantiated.

The decision details the calculation of retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, including a lump sum payment, and orders for an equalization payment.

The divorce claim was severed to proceed separately.

The applicant sought costs following successful motions, including an award of interim custody, where the respondent's conduct was described as "egregious." The respondent failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's requested costs of $2,080 to be modest and reasonable, considering the applicant's success and the respondent's behaviour.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the fixed costs.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for interim custody and access.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's harassing behaviour, including criminal harassment charges and homophobic remarks directed at the applicant and her new partner, which involved the child.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to maintain the status quo, finding compelling reasons to alter it due to his conduct.

The court awarded interim custody to the applicant and established a parenting schedule where the child is with the applicant for three days and the respondent for four days, with all decision-making authority vested in the applicant.

The respondent was encouraged to seek counselling.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim spousal support prior to a case conference following the breakdown of a short marriage with no children.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the respondent’s pension income, RRSP assets, and tax‑free municipal income, as well as the applicant’s recent back surgery and limited current employment prospects.

The respondent argued that his income was modest and that RRSP withdrawals funded much of the parties’ lifestyle during the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in the respondent’s financial disclosure and drew an adverse inference regarding omitted tax‑free income.

On an interim, interim basis, the court ordered spousal support to permit the applicant to meet living expenses and transition to employment and alternate accommodation.

Following a family law motion, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

After reviewing the claims, the order granted, the parties’ submissions, and the respondent’s offer to settle, the court found that success on the motion was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principles governing costs in family proceedings, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own costs.