Introduction

The decision in Moretti v. Moretti had Justice Sugunasiri reviewing several financial issues, including child and spousal support, equalization and occupation rent. Justice Sugunasiri dismissed each of the financial claims except for one. The issue of ongoing child support was not dismissed because there was still an adult child of the marriage who required support for their disability.

Background

Mr. Moretti and Ms. Moretti separated in March of 2016. The couple had one son, who at the time of the proceedings, was 20 years old. However, the couple’s son was still considered a “child of the marriage” because he lives with autism. Ms. Moretti and the couple’s son currently live at the previous matrimonial home, that is still owned solely by Mr. Moretti.

At issue in the case are financial claims made by both spouses. Ms. Moretti sought retroactive and continuing child and spousal support, equalization and interest in the matrimonial home. In comparison, Mr. Moretti sought occupation rent from Ms. Moretti for residing in the former matrimonial home. Similarly, Mr. Moretti sought damages for breach of trust, from a misuse of funds he gave Ms. Moretti to rent out a commercial space.

Analysis

The court first analyzed whether Ms. Moretti was entitled to retroactive or ongoing spousal support. Ms. Moretti sough both compensatory and non-compensatory support. Using the objectives for support from the Divorce Act, Justice Sugunasiri examined if Ms. Moretti was economically disadvantaged after the couple’s separation. Ms. Moretti earned a cash income by doing spiritual readings. From 2016 to 2021, Ms. Moretti deposited over $2 million into her bank account. Some customers testified that they had given Ms. Moretti $5 million over the 21 years of knowing her. Ms. Moretti also earned $800 a month from undisclosed rent. In comparison, Mr. Moretti made an income of around $50,000 per year. As a result, Justice Sugunasiri determined that Ms. Moretti had not proved her entitlement to any spousal support, and the issue did not need be examined any further. Ms. Moretti had shown no evidence that she suffered an economic disadvantage from the marriage break down.

The court then analyzed whether Ms. Moretti was entitled to an equalization payment. Here, the court reduced Ms. Moretti’s entitlement to equalization to zero, because she recklessly dissipated the family’s assets. More specifically, evidence given established that Ms. Moretti had a gambling addiction, dissipating funds that she could have used to cover family expenses or invest in her future. OLG records from 2012 to 2017 show that Ms. Moretti spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at one casino alone. Ms. Moretti also took no steps to address her gambling addiction.

Moving to Mr. Moretti’s claims, the court examined whether Ms. Moretti owed occupation rent for residing in the previous matrimonial home. Although Ms. Moretti lived in the home, she also provided all the care towards the couple’s son, which Mr. Moretti admitted he could not do given his own health issues. Similarly, because the court had disentitled Ms. Moretti from an equalization payment, the court found it unjust to also order occupation rent.

The other issue was a breach of trust. Mr. Moretti argued that he gave Ms. Moretti $400,000 that was intended to buy or rent a commercial space, and to pay for their son’s expenses. However, because Mr. Moretti did not support his position with any case law, the claim was dismissed.

The only issue the court allowed was ongoing child support from Mr. Moretti for the couple’s son. Although the child is 20, he is a person living with autism and remains a dependent under Ms. Moretti. However, Mr. Moretti and Ms. Moretti had not provided evidence of a clear plan for their son’s future and accommodations, so child support could not be fixed yet.

Conclusion

The court in Moretti v. Moretti is an example of the court being stringent when examining financial issues. Here, Justice Sugunasiri dismissed all claims the parties made against each other, whether it be for reasons of justness or for lack evidence. In comparison, the only issue Justice Sugunasiri allowed was the order for ongoing child support. Historically, the courts have emphasized the requirement of parties to provide care and support for their children, and this is evident here.