Superior Court Penalties I
Lump sum payments are one time monetary transfers, as opposed to periodic payments such as monthly child or spousal support. In this study lump sum payments are broadly defined. They may be payments for most any reason, however equalization payments have been excluded as virtually all cases have some sort of equalization. Similar considerations apply to cost penalties. The most common lumps ordered are for arrears, retroactive support, or extraordinary expenses. Lump sum penalties may be accompanied by other measures for instance, security deposits. Failure to pay may result in default or contempt hearings and possibly even jail sentences. A large lump could certainly be problematic for some one with small assets.
Not all lump sum payments can be characterized as penalties. Some may be negotiated on consent. It may actually be an advantage to one or both parties for an immediate transfer rather the dragging it out over years. A lesser total sum might be negotiated for the benefit of immediate availability. Consent agreements are typically omitted from this study unless they are in dispute or defaulted upon.
One less obvious use of lump sum penalties is basically equivalent to that of security deposits. If the court feels a payor is a payment risk it may decide to grant the recipient a lump sum so ongoing collection is not necessary. This lump may be offset against equalization. Typically the payors equity in the family home is transferred to the recipient, however other assets may also be used. The family law act would provide that premarriage assets are excluded from equalization, and the family home belongs to both parties, however lump sum clauses allow the court discretion to make awards that go against the apparent intent of those laws. In the case of Swanson v. Swanson, 2004 CanLII 48679 (ON S.C.), the husband was unemployed and on welfare, yet the court declared him intentionally unemployed, and his ex wife brought in expert witnesses to impute a future earning capacity to him. The court lump summed him for support based on this imputed capacity and transferred his equity in the family home and his bank accounts, based on this imputed future capacity and the declaration he was a payment risk. Like equalization, support is supposed to be based on actual income and wealth, but punitive clauses may be used to defeat these provisions. Payors may be bankrupted on the mere allegation they are risks, and debts assigned exceeding there net worth and actual capacity to pay. Then they may be imprisoned for not doing so.
Finally, in this study, relief does not include a party being ordered to pay a lump sum which was less than requested by the other party, but it does include cases where previously ordered lump sums have been reduced or overturned on appeal. A summary of the cases where lump sums were ordered is included in Appendix C1, and a summary of cases were lump sums were rejected can be found in Appendix C2.
For family cases where lump sum payments were an issue the results are as follows
Party 
Number of cases 
Lump denied 
Lump .ordered 
Overturned . on appeal 
. Some , .. .relief 
No relief 
Male 
133 
39 
94 
2 
6 
86 
Female 
8 
6 
2 
0 
0 
2 
Summarized in percentage terms
Party 
Number of cases 
Lump denied 
Lump .ordered 
Male 
100 
29.3 
70.7 
Female 
100 
66.6 
33.3 
Party 
Number of lumps 
Overturned . on appeal 
Some . . relief 
No relief 
Male 
100 
2.1 
6.4 
91.5 
Female 
100 
0 
0 
100 
% Men Lump Summed = 94 / 96 x 100 = 97.9 %
% Women Lump Summed = 2 / 96 x 100 = 2.1 %
It must be noted that 2 out of 94 men had lump sum requirements removed, so after relief is considered the statistics are as follows.
% Men Lump Summed = 92 / 94 x 100 = 97.9 %
% Women Lump Summed = 2 / 94 x 100 = 2.1 %
It can be concluded that men constitute 97.9 % of the family lump sum payments before and after relief is considered, and similarly 2.1 % for women. Men are assigned such payments at a rate of 46 to 1 compared to females. When it is imposed on a man there is a 2.1 % chance the order will be set aside with no consequences, and a 6.4 % chance he will get some relief, but a 91.5 % chance he will get no relief at all. No payments were overturned or given relief for females however the data indicates they were subjected to this penalty at extremely low comparative rates. The consequences may be quite substancial including ; vesting orders transferring properties or assets. A person may be bankrupted over these statutes on the mere expectation of future income. Nor does the law allow bankruptcy to absolve support obligations.
Average Amount of Lump Sum Awards ( equalization and costs excluded where possibile )
= ( 57 + 93 + 180 + 350 + 44 + 30 + 200 + 80 + 57 + 30 + 100 + 5 +15 + 10 + 45 + 7.3 + 2.5 + 325 + 42 + 6 + 50 +11 + 20 + 13.5 + 40 + 10 + 100 + 56 + 17 + 9.1 + 10 + 152 + 9 + 5 + 32 + 7 + 6 + 43 + 23 + 35 + 10 + 9.6 + 23 + 36 + 43 + 14 + 26 + 30 +54 + 5 + 320 + 10 + 22 + 5 + 5 + 79 + 16 + 40 + 15 + 65 + 24 + 45 + 10 + 79 + 3.3 + 8 + 2.5 ) / 67
= 2425 / 67 = 36.1 K
Appendix C1 — Ontario Lump Sum Cases Studied


Sex..of party 
Outcome 
1 
McDougall Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 5877 (ON S.C.) 
m 
57 K lump sum, must continue to pay 4.2 K per month support until lump sum is paid 
2 
Demarchi v. Selwyn, 2002 CanLII 2722 (ON S.C.) 
m 
93 K lump sum made credited towards monthly payments 
3 
Malerba v. Malerba, 2004 CanLII 34791 (ON S.C.) 
m 
180 K lump sum to be taken from pension after man has declared bankruptcy, costs and debt ruled outside bankruptcy and must be paid by husbands trustee in bankruptcy, contempt, secure support with life insurance policy 
4 
Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 9423 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 350 K for child support, costs of 70 K 
5 
SigroDiGiosaffatte v. DiGiosaffatte, 2003 CanLII 2238 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum and arrears and costs of 44 K owing, pleadings struck, must pay before he can ask for a variation 
6 
Wiltshire v. Wiltshire, 2005 CanLII 370 (ON S.C.) 
m 
41 K lump sum to be paid for arrears of support equalization and costs 
7 
Hitchens v. Hitchens, 2004 CanLII 12899 (ON S.C.) 
m 
30 K spousal lump sum payment plus 1K per month and 387 K retroactive child support, income imputed , intentionally unemployed 
8 
Aunger v. Aunger, 2004 CanLII 39015 (ON S.C.) 
m 
200 K lump sum support, wife already got 2 lump payments of 42 K 
9 
Bekarkhanchi v. Bozchelouei, 2003 CanLII 30463 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum child and spousal support and equalization payment of 447 K, variation denied 
10 
Swanson v. Swanson, 2004 CanLII 48679 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 80 K for support, imputed income, intentionally unemployed 
11 
Prichici v. Prichici, 2005 CanLII 16626 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man makes settlement agreement pays lump sum, court overturns and orders support, order overturning overturned on appeal. 
12 
Reid v. Saliba, 2005 CanLII 48321 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man must rollover 57 K of pension in lump sum to wife 
13 
Mgrdichian v. Mgrdichian, 2006 CanLII 13773 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum 2.4 million, 95 K in support arrears, 26 K in cost arrears, 65 k fraud decision, 2 times jailed for comtempt, declares bankruptcy, accused on moving assets from country 
14 
Duhnych v. Duhnych, 2004 CanLII 11777 (ON S.C.)

m 
Home secured against lump sum payment, for failure to pay 39 K of 42 K income 
15 
Cook v. Ryder, 2003 CanLII 2085 (ON S.C.)

m 
Ordered to pay 7 K of support arrears in lump sum, must put $ 220 per month in account for special needs of child as well as paying support, child support increased 
16 
McIsaac v. McIsaac, 2004 CanLII 5061 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum spousal support of 30 K, equalization of 255 K, charging order for balance of 187 K on business 
17 
Felte v. Felte, 2003 CanLII 2118 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man to pay 100 K lump sum on spousal support and 100 K lump sum on equalization 
18 
Gillett v. Smyth, 2002 CanLII 2786 (ON S.C.) 
w 
Wife to pay 5 K lump for arrears, 3.8 K per month in total support 
19 
Hugel v. Hugel, 2004 CanLII 15763 (ON S.C.) 
m 
25 K in compensatory support, 28 K in retroactive child support, 3.5 K per month in child support, must keep 250 K insurance policy as security 
20

Rothenburg v. Rothenburg, 2003 CanLII 2229 (ON S.C.) 
m 
15 K lump sum for retroactive support, life insurance policy as security 
21 
Meade v. Meade, 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of $ 1750 but 22 K in calculated arrears of support 
22 
Tustian v. Dancey, 2004 CanLII 48179 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man paid 10 K lump at trial, gets some arrears expunged 
23 
Eagle v. Eagle, 2004 CanLII 2561 (ON S.C.) 
m 
45 K lump sum for support arrears, refused variation, 2.5 K per month support 
24 
Arella v. Scobak, 2003 CanLII 2460 (ON S.C.) 
m 
50 K lump sum for unjust enrichment, arrears not varied, wife seeks imprisonment, not found in contempt 
25 
Malo v. Malo, 2004 CanLII 4799 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 100 K paid as an advance on equalization 
26 
Lee v. Lee, 2004 CanLII 5056 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Unspecified one time lump support them motion for interim spousal and child support of 1.1 K per month granted 
27 
Beaudry v. Beaudry, 2004 CanLII 20399 (ON S.C.)

m 
7.3 K lump sum for arrears of spousal support, transfer of 30 K of RRSP for arrears and lump sum, a lien on his motorcycle, 15 K costs 
28 
Pollock v. Pollock, 2006 CanLII 3483 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man pays lump sum of 2.5 K for interim support 
29 
McDougall Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 5876 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Setllement agreement gives wife 243 K lump for everything, she asks to have it overturned but is denied and given 325 K lump for retroactive child support. 
30 
Gallaugher v. Gallaugher, 2005 CanLII 19767 (ON S.C.) 
m 
2 lump sums to make up adjusted arrears or original apply. Fails to make all payments and arrears not rescinded 
31 
Sleiman v. Sleiman, 2003 CanLII 1982 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum 42 K for child support, pleadings struck, 15 K equalization and 15 K constructive trust 
32 
Davis v. Davis, 2003 CanLII 2300 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum of .6 K for retroactive support, 1.5 K per month ongoing support 
33 
Lindo v. Lindo, 2002 CanLII 2702 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum over 50 K given by transfer of home, $ 225 per month spousal support 
34 
MacPherson v. MacPherson, 2005 CanLII 28543 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum 11 K support arrears, contempt, 1.5 K penalty 
35 
Sheikh v. Sheikh, 2005 CanLII 34589 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man pays lump sum of 20 K for back support, equalization of 80 K and costs of 150 K, mother allowed to move to England with child 
36 
Conway v. Conway, 2005 CanLII 14136 (ON S.C.) 
m 
13.5 K lump sum for support, 6 K for equalization 
37 
Taillon v. Taillon, 2005 CanLII 8688 (ON S.C.)

m 
Arrears of support to be paid as a lump sum 
38 
Harris v. Stuart Harris, 2005 CanLII 28789 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum payment of 40 K for spousal support, equalization would of gone 10 K against the wife so she is given additional 10 K unjust enrichment award brining total lump to 50 K 
39 
Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, 2003 CanLII 1944 (ON S.C.) 
m 
10 K interim lump payment for support, 175 vesting order on home with husbands share held in trust as security, 169 K equalization, domestic assault 
40 
Onogi v. Elguindi, 2005 CanLII 23686 (ON S.C.) 
m 
2 voluntary lump sums of 22 K and 24 K, court orders 26 K lump sum, equalization of 485 K and support of 5 K per month. lump sum figures in US $ 
41 
Maratib v. Zafar, 2005 CanLII 19842 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Interim lump sum of 9 K reversed at trial and parties split cost 
42 
Ward v. Bates, 2005 CanLII 2947 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sums of 48 K and 18 K forced by FRO to pay arrears, intentionally unemployed, imputed income 100 K must borrow to stay out of jail, variation denied 
43 
Sh. É. C. v. G. P., 2003 CanLII 2028 (ON S.C.) 
m 
5 K lump on extraordinary child expenses, 12 K lump retroactive child support, charged on sale of house, domestic assault, hasn’t seen child in 1 ½ years, permanent restraining order 
44 
Umholtz v. Umholtz, 2003 CanLII 2025 (ON S.C.) 
m 
9.1 K lump for retroactive support for one child to be paid from equalization, support of other child adjourned 
45 
Vangroenigen v. Vangroenigen, 2005 CanLII 38896 (ON S.C.) 
m 
10 K lump for final settlement of spousal support, some reduction for past overpayment, intentionally unemployed due to not working overtime 
46 
Trick v. Trick, 2003 CanLII 2260 (ON S.C.) 
m 
152 K lump sum for retroactive child support, settlement agreement overturned, 2.2 K per month total support, claims he’s almost impecuous 
47 
Leckie v. Leckie, 2003 CanLII 1971 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum equalization prepayment of 14 K from sale of home, his sialboat and RRSP, security for ongoing support by life insurance policy 
48 
Reid v. Reid, 2005 CanLII 20793 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum obtained from estate of deceased ex husband 
49 
Dorthee v. Bekintis, 2004 CanLII 44989 (ON S.C.) 
m 
9 K lump sum for settlement of spousal support obligations, and 1 year $ 750 per month 
50 
Schwabe v. Schwabe, 2005 CanLII 37005 (ON S.C.) 
m 
5 K lump payment for s.7 ? expenses, 4 K arrears ordered paid, extraordinary expenses of 3 K to be paid 
51 
Boissy v. Boissy, 2004 CanLII 7047 (ON S.C.) 
m 
$ 800 lump sum for occupational rent not excluded from his bankruptcy 
52 
Dolson v. Dolson, 2004 CanLII 33778 (ON S.C.) 
m 
32 K lump to settle support is husbands share of home, made on agreement, wife seeks to overturn agrreement and is denied 
53 
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 2005 CanLII 30878 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Prejudgement interest awaeded as lump sum, 8 K per month support, 1.2 million equalization to be paid in installments of 200 K 
54 
Scalabrini v. Scalabrini, 2003 CanLII 18778 (ON S.C.

m 
7 K lump sum to settle spousal support 
55 
Colafranceschi v. Colafranceschi, 2005 CanLII 10646 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Woman gets lump sum spousal support and costs 
56 
Bedi v. Bedi, 2004 CanLII 34426 (ON S.C.) 
m 
6 K lump sum for retroactive support, 
57 
Colford v. Colford, 2005 CanLII 13032 (ON SC) 
m 
Lump of 43 K for past arrears of 80 K, alienated from son who won’t see him, must get life insurance designated to son until son turns 27 
58 
McLean v. McLean, 2003 CanLII 2044 (ON SC) 
m 
20 K US lump sum from separation agreement paid, separation agreement ruled invalid 
59 
Ostap v. Ostap, 2003 CanLII 2193 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum of 35 K which is less than originally ordered. Court overrules separation agreement 
60 
Taylor v. Taylor, 2004 CanLII 42952 (ON S.C.) 
m 
10 K compensatory lump sum support, 19 K equalization 
61 
Bechard v. Illingworth, 2003 CanLII 1923 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Must pay 5 K lump sum in 180 days for not disclosing rental income, man asks for lump sum to cover the payment and is denied 
62 
RiversEshkibok v. Eshkibok, 2002 CanLII 2849 (ON S.C.) 
m 
9.6 K in compensatory support taken off unequal division of family home, 1 years of $ 800 per month transitional support 
63 
Mendler v. Mendler, 2006 CanLII 6693 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 23 K from severance package, increase in child support retroactive 
64 
Kelly v. Kelly, 2003 CanLII 2344 (ON S.C.) 
m 
36 K lump sum and additional 19 K equalization in ammended afreement after 206 K equalization, third variation not allowed 
65 
Larkin v. Labonté, 2002 CanLII 2664 (ON S.C.) 
m 
60 K unjust enrichment to be paid as a lump sum from mans RRSP 
66 
Kumar v. McKenna (Kumar), 2003 CanLII 2156 (ON S.C.) 
m 
38 K arrears and 5 K lump sum award to be taken from mans portion of sale of home 
67 
Orser v. Grant, 2003 CanLII 2277 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Pleadings struck, lump sum retroactive support of 14 K and costs of 20 K, arrested as absconding debtor, Fro holds 7 K security asks for his pleadings struck and 72 K arrears and 15 K security and jail and seizure of property if he defaults 
68 
G.A.F. v. L.E.D., 2005 CanLII 32923 (ON S.C.) 
m 
26 K lump sum for child and spousal support to be taken from proceeds of home 
69 
Lenz v. Broadhurst Main, 2004 CanLII 5059 (ON S.C 
m 
30 K lump sum payment reduced to 20 K, man sues his lawyers 
70 
MaceusAgyekum v. Agyekum, 2005 CanLII 10539 (ON S.C.) 
m 
54 K lump sum including 20 K for spousal support and child support arrears and special expenses, imputed income, intentionally unemployed, life insurance policy for security 
71 
Tessarolo v Tessarolo, 2005 CanLII 25108 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum 5 K compensatory support, life insurance as security 
72 
Thomson v. Thomson, 2004 CanLII 7356 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Wife received 2 lump sums totaling 320 K, turned down for third lump sum of 125 K 
73 
Cade v. Rotstein, 2002 CanLII 2811 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum payments for increases in child support, pays 1.8 K per month child support, 3.5 K per month spousal support 
74 
R.M. v. R.L.Z., 2004 CanLII 5024 (ON S.C 
m 
10 K lumps sum compensatory support 
75 
Socan v. Socan, 2005 CanLII 33545 (ON S.C. 
m 
17 K lump sum equalizations or then taken from pension payment to be made in 30 day 
76 
David v. David, 2004 CanLII 46652 (ON S.C.) 
m 
22 K lump sum retroactive arrears 
77 
Bauer v. Bauer, 2005 CanLII 19811 (ON S.C.) 
m 
5 K lump extraordinary child expenses, vesting order on home to wife 
78 
Pickard v. Pickard, 2005 CanLII 23688 (ON S.C) 
m 
5 K retroactive support, imputed income 
79 
Raaymakers v. Green, 2004 CanLII 39 (ON S. 
m 
79 K lump for spousal support giving wife the house with no equalization, 1.2 K child support and 1.4 K spousal support continued, 10 K lump for failing to disclose financial information 
80 
McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2002 CanLII 2804 (ON S.C. 
w 
16 K lump sum for retroactive spousal support from equalization, 1 K per month support, security denied 
81 
Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.) 
m 
40 K lump sum support, security on home and possessions and new wifes assets, pleadings struck, 215 ordered paid to court, man and new wife sentenced to jail, costs, garnishment of wages 70 % 
82 
Danylkiw v. Danylkiw, 2003 CanLII 2283 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Man pays 15 K lump for spousal support and 2 K per month child support, fraudulently reports income, children move in with man, wife ordered to pay retroactive support 
83 
Paech v. Paech, 2004 CanLII 4025 (ON S.C.) 
m 
30 K lump sum support, an additional 71 K to be paid within 30 days.50 K interim disbursement, 35 K extraordinary expense, 8 K per month child support, interim motion 
84 
Tishbi v. Shemesh, 2005 CanLII 3383 (ON S.C.) 
m 
200 K lump sum covering all claims 
85 
Fletcher v. McDonnell, 2005 CanLII 23108 (ON S.C.) 
m 
24 K lump sum paid, 21 K ordered for arrears of child support 
86 
J.M.M. v. G.S.M., 2006 CanLII 6457 (ON S.C.)

M 
2 lump sum payments already made, 40 K in retroactive child support, 3.5 K in retroactive spousal support, 53 K equalization and vesting order for house, 40 K costs, restraining order 
87 
Pearson v. Griffith, 2004 CanLII 21278 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 45 K ordered, appeal denied, total payments ordered 188 K, paid 214 K and court says it’s not an overpayment, variation denied 
88 
Ristimaki v. Cooper, 2004 CanLII 16074 (ON S.C.) 
m 
2,5 million paid including various lump sums, almost 7 million still owing, default, petitioned into bankruptcy, man leaves country 
89 
ButskyPlekan v. Plekan, 2005 CanLII 11194 (ON S.C.) 
m 
10 K lump sum for spousal support arrears 
90 
Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 2004 CanLII 35095 (ON S.C.) 
m 
79 K lump sum for retroactive support, separation agreement overturned, spousal support increased from $ 400 to 1.2 K per month 
91 
Zadegan v. Zadegan, 2003 CanLII 49378 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 3.3 K for s.7 expenses, wife found in contempt for not selling house 
92 
N.S. v.D.S., 2002 CanLII 2711 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sums of 4.5 K and 3.5 K for costs and arrears of support, didn’t make equalization payment of 15 K, support 2 K per month total, no more motions until support is paid, wife allowed to move to Nova Scotia with children 
93 
Fang v. Fang, 2004 CanLII 13068 (ON S.C.)

m 
Lump sum of 44 K for support arrears, 2.5 K per month total support, contempt for not returning children on time, wife separates by abducting children and gets custody, mans proceeds from sale of house to be held as security, vesting order on RRSP, imputed income 
94 
Janmaat v. Janmaat, 2005 CanLII 25890 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum for retroactive support to be based on imputed income, equalization 351 K 
95 
Palinka v Palinka, 2003 CanLII 2195 (ON S.C.) 
m 
Lump sum of 1.6 K for wifes expenses, wife denied restraining order and 15 K disbursement, gets 500 K life insurance designation for security and spousal support of 2.5 K 
96 
Wentsell v. Schumacher, 2004 CanLII 15668 (ON S.C.) 
m 
2.5 K lump sum due within 14 days for arrears of child support, support increased to 1.3 K 
Appendix C2 Ontario Lump Sum Rejected Cases Studied

Case 
Request .. by 


.. Case 
Request .. by 
1 
Chamaniall v Chamaniall 
w 

26 
Eveleigh v Eveleigh 2005 
w 
2 
Legault v Pineault 2006 
w 

27 
Hesketh v Hesketh 
w 
3 
Beckett v Spencer 2002 
w 

28 
Al Mutter v Al Ekabi 2003 
w 
4 
Jellison v Jellison 2003 
w 

29 
Loblaw v Loblaw 2005 
w 
5 
DeCiccio v DeCiccio 2003 
w 

30 
Shaw v Szabo 2003 
w 
6 
Mnangi v Wahome 2004 
w 

31 
Kalla v Kalla 2003 
w 
7 
Pinizzatto v Pinizzatto 2005 
w 

32 
Jahangiri – Mavaneh v Taheri – Zengekani 2003 
w 
8 
Clewlow v Clewlow 2004 
w 

33 
SB v DB 2003 
w 
9 
Young v Hansen 2003 
m 

34 
Retchard v Illingworth 2003 
m 
10 
Meade v Meade 2002 
m 

35 
Marsbergen v Marsbergen 2006 
w 
11 
Millward v Millward 2002 
w 

36 
Culhane v Culhane 
w 
12 
Beitel v Beitel 2004 
m 

37 
Thomson v Thomson 2004 
w 
13 
Savage v Savage 2002 
w 

38 
VAW v RCL 2004 
w 
14 
Girouard v Girouard 2006 
w 

39 
Feng v Philips 2005 
w 
15 
Dababneh v Dababneh 2003 
w 

40 
Hunter v Hunter 2005 
m 
16 
Chehowy v Chehowy 2004 
w 

41 
High v Green 2003 
w 
17 
SL v AL 2003 
w 

42 
MC v BD 2004 
w 
18 
Miner v Miner 2004 
w 

43 
DH v GP 2004 

19 
Roscoe v Roscoe 2003 
m 

44 
Armstrong v Armstrong 2003 
w 
20 
Bondy v Bondy 2004 
w 

45 
Cameron v McGillivray 2005 
w 
21 
Modino v Modino 2004 
w 




22 
Chrnley v Chornley 2003 
w 




23 
Dalgleish v Dalgleish 2003 
w 




24 
Monaghan v Monaghan 2002 
w 




25 
Martin v Martin 
w 



