Birkin J. Culp

Multiple competing family law motions addressed child support, retroactive support, post‑secondary expenses, reinstatement of spousal support, and insurance obligations following a prior separation agreement and a subsequent divorce order.

The court considered the interaction between a 2001 separation agreement and a 2006 divorce order that increased and time‑limited spousal support.

Applying principles from Miglin and related jurisprudence, the court held that spousal support could be reinstated despite the earlier termination because the agreement contemplated material changes once child support ended and the recipient’s economic disadvantage persisted due to caregiving responsibilities.

The court also ordered retroactive guideline child support reflecting the payor’s increased income and continued support for an adult child suffering from major depression who remained dependent.

Other contractual provisions relating to life insurance and benefits were left intact.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.

Following a successful family law motion regarding parenting access and issues involving an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably by refusing access to the child and frustrating the OCL investigation.

The court found the respondent’s rigid refusal to permit access and her conduct during the clinical investigation constituted unreasonable behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the claimed fees to reflect reasonable hourly rates, adjusted travel time, and applied a further reduction due to the respondent’s financial circumstances as a single parent with several children.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount and ordered payable within 90 days.