Anthony V.R. Martin

This family law trial addressed several outstanding issues between Melanie Jansen and Matthew Skillen following their separation.

The parties disputed the date of separation, parenting arrangements for their daughter, child and spousal support amounts, and the equalization of family property.

The Applicant sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the Respondent sought shared parenting and decision-making.

The court heard the matter over a five-day trial to resolve these disputes.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the applicant father for child support purposes and interim disbursements for legal fees and an expert.

The court found the applicant had provided sufficient disclosure, dismissing the respondent's motion for further disclosure, but ordered applicant's counsel to obtain a comprehensive compensation letter from Manulife to address remaining concerns.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for interim disbursements, citing the unreasonableness of her litigation conduct and her financial capacity.

The applicant was awarded costs for a prior contested adjournment.

The mother brought a motion requesting that a previous costs order of $12,430 be defined as support so it could be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that its authority to direct legal fees to be enforced by FRO is limited to costs awards arising out of support decisions.

Because the underlying trial dealt exclusively with parenting issues and a restraining order, the court had no authority to grant the requested relief, though it outlined other enforcement options available to the mother.

Following a trial regarding parenting arrangements and a restraining order, both parties sought costs.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party overall, despite divided success on some issues.

However, the court found the mother acted in bad faith by deliberately withholding videotape evidence that contradicted her claims, which significantly reduced her costs entitlement.

The father's request for costs personally against the mother's counsel was dismissed, as counsel's actions amounted to poor judgment rather than deliberate obstruction.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs fixed at $12,430.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial regarding child support obligations.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery of costs of $17,868.13, while the respondent (father) sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful than the father at trial.

The father failed to make a settlement offer, delayed disclosure, and did not comply with multiple court orders.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $50 per month starting March 1, 2017, recognizing the father's limited financial circumstances while emphasizing that litigants of modest means must act reasonably or bear the consequences.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of two of the parties' three children.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the children's preferences should be explored at trial and that cross-examination was necessary.

The court granted the motion, finding that sufficient evidence regarding the children's best interests was already available through the Children's Lawyer's reports and observations.

The court awarded custody of Louis and Nikolas to the respondent, noting the children's consistent preferences and the applicant's failure to facilitate access to the respondent.

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce spousal support following retirement from employment due to alleged illness and disability, and also requested termination of a life insurance obligation securing the support.

The court considered whether retirement and changes in income constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act.

Despite retirement, the court found the payor’s financial position had improved and remained significantly stronger than the recipient’s, who continued to face financial hardship after a long-term marriage.

The court held that no material change had occurred and rejected arguments relating to alleged double recovery from the payor’s pension.

The application to terminate or reduce spousal support and remove the insurance obligation was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for child support based on an imputed income of $100,000 for the respondent in 2010.

The respondent, a self-employed real estate salesman, had reported minimal income to tax authorities but demonstrated substantial lifestyle expenditures and large bank deposits.

The court found that the respondent's business expense deductions were excessive and not adequately supported by documentation.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered child support of $880 per month retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to special expenses including after-school care and summer camp.

The respondent brought a motion for specified access to the child, seeking to expand upon the existing access order dated 8 April 2011.

The respondent requested additional access on various occasions including special family events, extended summer access, and permission for family representatives to conduct access exchanges.

The court found the respondent to be a committed father and granted certain requests while denying others.

The court granted three weeks of summer access in 2012, access to a wedding and trip to Florida, and permitted designated family members to conduct access exchanges.

The court denied requests for additional weekday access for lessons, extra holiday access pending further agreement on special occasions, and certain specific date requests.

The court directed that the Children's Lawyer provide input on outstanding issues regarding special occasions and holiday arrangements.