Barry Lynn

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child support, arrears, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the relief, seeking to impute a higher income to the applicant, lower child support below the table amount, and requesting exclusive possession of the home.

The court ordered interim child support at the table amount, finding insufficient evidence to impute income or deviate for shared parenting.

The court deferred the issue of arrears to trial due to conflicting evidence.

The court granted the order for the sale of the matrimonial home, rejecting the respondent's request for exclusive possession, but delayed the listing until June 2026 to allow the respondent time to find new housing.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.

The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.

The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.

On a motion to change a final divorce order, the applicant sought substantial retroactive reductions in child support, termination of spousal support, reallocation of section 7 expenses, relief from arrears-related obligations, and restraining relief, relying primarily on the closure of his business and reduced employment income following personal bankruptcy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but also found that the bankruptcy and business closure were voluntary, strategically motivated, and accompanied by incomplete income disclosure, particularly as to tip income.

Despite serious credibility concerns and highly unreasonable conduct, the court held the existing order was unrealistically beyond the applicant's present means and varied support retroactively to more practical amounts.

Child support was reduced effective August 1, 2012, spousal support was reduced to nominal ongoing support of $200 per month, section 7 contribution was fixed at 46%, mutual restraining-type terms were imposed, and the respondent received full recovery costs.

Following a 15‑year marriage, the applicant sought equalization of net family property, post‑separation adjustments, occupation rent, and other relief.

The court determined each party’s net family property and found the respondent owed an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court also ordered post‑separation reimbursements to the applicant for carrying costs of the matrimonial home, payment of a Legal Aid lien, prior costs, and funds improperly withdrawn from a joint line of credit.

The request for occupation rent was denied due to insufficient evidentiary foundation and equitable considerations.

Spousal support was continued at an agreed amount for a limited period, with income imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage due to intentional unemployment.

Costs were determined following competing family law motions concerning supervision and expansion of parental access to a child.

The applicant grandmother sought to change the supervisor of the father’s access, while the mother sought unsupervised staged access.

The court had dismissed the applicant’s motion and granted the mother’s cross‑motion for unsupervised access.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs presumptively follow the event and found no bad faith or unreasonable conduct sufficient to displace that presumption.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to each successful respondent for their respective motions.