This was a Decision of a Summary Trial pursuant to Rule 7.3. The Trial focused on determining issues such as retroactive and ongoing child support, potential imputation of income, spousal support, and division of matrimonial property. The Court found that there was sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to decide the matter and that it would not be unjust to do so without a Trial.

The Court was guided by the four-step approach to retroactive child support, as outlined in
DBS v SRG, 2006 SCC 37. Following an analysis on the facts, the Court determined that it was appropriate to award the Plaintiff retroactive child support.

Next, the Court determined if the Plaintiff was entitled to spousal support. The Court found the Plaintiff’s claim for compensatory entitlement weak, as she had not provided any evidence to support her claim that being a primary caregiver prevented her from finding work. However, finding that the Plaintiff’s income was far lower than the Defendant, the Court was satisfied the Plaintiff was entitled to non-compensatory spousal support.

The Court then considered what property would be considered “matrimonial.” The Court found that the Defendant had transferred matrimonial property in an effort to defeat the Plaintiff’s property claim. Therefore, the relevant property was to be considered matrimonial.  The Court also considered property held in China, finding that none of the properties in China were brought into the matrimonial regime.

In conclusion, the Court directed the Defendant to provide child and spousal support. Furthermore, the Court mandated, among other provisions, that the Defendant issue equalization payments to the Plaintiff, representing her portion of the proceeds from the sale of matrimonial property.