Family and Matrimonial Law

On a motion to change a separation agreement, the applicant sought amendments to provisions governing child support and post-secondary education expenses for children over the age of 18 pursuing education.

The court found no binding agreement had been reached at a prior case conference regarding the proposed amendments.

The court amended the agreement to require child support while a child over 18 attends post-secondary education on a full-time basis and imposed an age limit of 25 for such support where the child resides with a parent.

The court also replaced the existing post-secondary expense clause with a detailed budgeting and contribution framework requiring the child to contribute between one-third and two-thirds of expenses, with the remainder shared proportionally between the parents.

Given the mixed success of the parties, no costs were ordered.

The respondent brought a motion under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to vary a 2006 spousal support order following his retirement from federal government employment.

The original order required payment of $2,000 per month in non‑compensatory spousal support after a 30‑year marriage with no children and included division of the payor’s pension through equalization.

The court found that the payor’s impending retirement and resulting 55% income reduction constituted a material change in circumstances.

While the payee continued to experience economic hardship and had health limitations affecting employability, the court found insufficient efforts toward self‑sufficiency and inadequate use of equalized assets.

Balancing the payor’s reduced income, the payee’s ongoing need, and principles against double recovery from pension assets, the court reduced the support obligation.

A custody dispute between separated parents concerning their young child following an interim order that placed the child primarily with the father pending trial.

The mother sought restoration of the previous arrangement under which the child primarily resided with her, relying in part on a social worker’s recommendation.

The court rejected the recommendation after finding it based on an inaccurate understanding of the parties’ historical caregiving roles and for failing to address the impact of reversing the existing arrangement.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s stability, successful adjustment in the father’s community, and concerns about the mother’s earlier relocation conduct.

The court concluded that maintaining the existing residence with the father while preserving generous access to the mother best served the child’s interests.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and leave to appeal an order staying an earlier appeal pending the filing of trial transcripts in a family law child support dispute.

The court held that the requirement for transcripts was reasonable given that the proposed appeal challenged factual findings of the trial judge.

The moving party failed to provide transcripts, did not adequately explain a delay of approximately three and a half years, and did not demonstrate prompt action once aware that the appeal deadlines had expired.

The court also found that the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise an issue of general importance warranting leave to appeal.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that the child was in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

Evidence demonstrated a prolonged history of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal involvement, and failure to engage with child protection services, as well as prior Crown wardship orders for the parents’ other children.

The parents did not participate meaningfully in the proceeding and failed to present evidence establishing any realistic prospect of improved parenting capacity.

Applying the summary judgment standard in child protection matters, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the child’s best interests required permanence without delay.

Crown wardship without access was ordered.

A separated married couple disputed custody, parenting time, child support, and property issues relating to two children with significant special needs.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act and rejected joint custody due to the parents’ inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court granted the applicant primary decision‑making authority with liberal parenting time to the respondent.

Income was imputed to the respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional underemployment, resulting in guideline child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court also recognized the applicant’s 50 percent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home under the presumption of resulting trust and declared a mortgage against a jointly owned cottage unsupported by evidence.

A high‑conflict family law trial addressing custody, access, and child support following separation.

The applicant sought sole custody while the respondent sought custody with equal access.

The court found evidence of controlling and abusive conduct by the respondent and determined that granting him final decision‑making authority would not be in the children’s best interests under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Sole custody was granted to the applicant with structured and generous access to the respondent, together with a detailed holiday schedule.

The court also found the respondent to be voluntarily under‑employed and ordered ongoing child support, arrears payment, and annual financial disclosure.

A father sought leave under s. 65.1(4) and (5) of the Child and Family Services Act to bring an application to review the status of his children, who had been crown wards placed for several years with their maternal grandparents.

The court considered the governing criteria for leave, including bona fides, whether unusual circumstances justified reopening a permanent placement, whether the review would advance the purposes of the Act, and whether the applicant established a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the children were thriving in a stable and nurturing home with their grandparents and maintained a positive relationship with their father.

The father failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or provide a compelling basis to disturb the children’s long‑standing placement.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

On a highly contested motion for interim custody, the court considered conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the child's residence, caregiving arrangements, and the parties’ respective parenting roles following separation.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found that both parents had strong emotional ties with the child and had been actively involved in her upbringing with support from extended family.

The evidence did not establish a clear status quo or justify maintaining the previous interim order granting custody to the father.

The court determined that the mother’s proposed plan better served the child’s interests, particularly in maintaining stability and preserving the sibling relationship.

An interim order for joint custody was granted, with the child’s principal residence to remain with the mother and a structured parenting schedule providing substantial time with the father.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior child support order.

The respondent had relocated to England and sought to rely on a provisional order from an English family court reflecting his reduced income as a landscape architect after leaving higher-paying employment as a boilermaker.

The court imputed income of $80,000 to the respondent, finding that his change in employment was voluntary and undertaken for personal reasons.

The court recalculated child support obligations, adjusted section 7 extraordinary expenses, and added unpaid post-secondary education expenses to the arrears.

The respondent’s pension from his former union was ordered to stand as security for accumulated child support arrears.

Multiple respondents brought motions to dismiss a family law application for delay.

The applicant had commenced claims including trust claims against extended family members and a family business but failed to advance the matter for nearly five years following procedural directions requiring particulars and disclosure.

The court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained and that prejudice to the added respondents was presumed and not rebutted, particularly where particulars had never been provided and documentary evidence had been lost.

The claims against the added respondents were therefore dismissed for delay.

However, the court declined to dismiss the claims against the spouse because family law proceedings between spouses involve ongoing issues such as support and property equalization and both parties contributed to the delay.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking further financial disclosure relating to the respondent’s real estate transactions and financial dealings.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary an earlier interim order by relaxing a non-dissipation order, ordering the immediate sale of all property, and reducing interim spousal support based on a lower asserted income.

The court found substantial evidence that the respondent had previously underreported income and exercised significant control over assets, justifying strict disclosure and asset preservation measures.

The court ordered the respondent to provide a detailed accounting tracing proceeds from several property sales and rejected the requested variation to the interim support and asset restrictions.

The respondent’s cross-motion was dismissed and the disclosure order granted.

In a family law proceeding following separation, both parties brought motions regarding access to and preservation of joint investment assets pending resolution of property and support issues.

The applicant sought exclusive monthly withdrawals from a joint investment account and preservation of the respondent’s assets, while the respondent sought division of the account or equal access to it.

The court declined to divide the account at this stage but ordered interim monthly withdrawals from the joint account of $6,500 to the applicant and $3,000 to the respondent.

The respondent was also permitted to withdraw $200,000 to address outstanding debts, credited against his eventual share.

A preservation order was granted over the parties’ assets to maintain the financial status quo pending further proceedings.

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.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs arising from earlier rulings relating primarily to disclosure disputes.

The applicant had brought motions alleging non-compliance with prior disclosure orders and seeking a finding of contempt, which was not granted, though the court found the respondent had not fully complied in a timely manner.

The court considered the conduct of both parties, including the respondent’s incomplete disclosure and the applicant’s counsel’s refusal to accept earlier delivery of documents that might have avoided the motion.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the objectives of Rule 2, the court fixed costs at $35,000 but ordered only $10,000 payable immediately, leaving the balance to the trial judge or to be addressed on a future motion concerning fees or unresolved disclosure.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior joint custody order to obtain sole custody and child support.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and whether the proposed variation was in the best interests of the children.

Evidence addressed school attendance, hygiene concerns, medical care, and parental communication failures while the children resided primarily with the respondent mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and concluded that the children’s educational, medical, and developmental needs were being better met while residing with the father.

Sole custody was granted to the father with liberal access to the mother, and income was imputed to the mother for child support purposes.

Following a two-day trial concerning child support in a shared parenting arrangement, the respondent sought full recovery costs of over $32,000.

The trial result imputed modest additional income to the respondent and resulted in minimal net support adjustments.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that the applicant had advanced serious allegations without supporting evidence and had engaged in litigation misconduct by strategically listing public officials as witnesses to pressure settlement.

However, the respondent had also failed to fully comply with disclosure obligations and attempted to tender previously undisclosed documents at trial.

Treating the parties’ litigation conduct as offsetting factors, the court awarded partial recovery costs to the successful party.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant spouse to place him on her extended health and dental plan so he could obtain psychological counselling.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the moving party was subject to prior court orders prohibiting further motions until compliance with outstanding temporary orders, including substantial unpaid costs, and that he remained in arrears.

The court also noted that the requested relief was incidental to a support claim where no support order had been made or requested, and that the benefits plan likely did not permit the addition of a separated spouse.

The court concluded the claim failed on multiple grounds and dismissed the motion.

The mother brought a motion to terminate an ex parte restraining order and vary a temporary custody order granted to the father after she was charged with assaulting one of the children.

The court considered whether the outstanding criminal charge and related allegations justified maintaining the father’s temporary custody.

After reviewing the evidence, including the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation and the historical caregiving status quo, the court found no evidence that the mother could not provide a safe environment for the children.

The restraining order was terminated and temporary custody of two children was returned to the mother, restoring the pre‑incident status quo.

The issue of temporary custody of the third child was adjourned for further evidence and submissions.

Following a family law motion determining arrears of child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent in the underlying motion obtained an order fixing arrears at $37,000, which exceeded the amount proposed in her offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules and the offer to settle regime, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter.

After adjusting for unrelated issues and the straightforward nature of the arrears calculation, the court fixed costs at $10,000 plus $800 for the costs submissions, enforceable through a support deduction order.