Bonnie L. Ostroski

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following a 27-year relationship.

The respondent argued the applicant had not established entitlement because she worked throughout the marriage.

The court disagreed, noting the applicant's earnings were substantially less, she sacrificed her advancement for the respondent's, and the respondent had previously paid voluntary support before unilaterally discontinuing it.

Using the parties' 2023 incomes, the court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,300 per month retroactive to September 1, 2023.

The respondent brought a motion to change to terminate spousal support and seek relief from child and spousal support arrears, citing unemployment and the applicant's new common-law relationship.

The applicant cross-moved for retroactive variation of child support, payment of section 7 expenses, and an order fixing arrears, while opposing the termination of spousal support.

The court found no material change in circumstances to warrant termination of spousal support, varied child support retroactively, fixed substantial arrears, ordered payment of section 7 expenses, and awarded costs to the applicant, finding the respondent's financial difficulties were not new and his conduct regarding disclosure and payments was poor.

The applicant sought interim spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ($1,510/month), while the respondent proposed an amount just below the low range ($1,000/month).

The court considered the applicant's primary care role for two children with autism, her limited income, her plans to retrain, and the respondent's ability to pay.

Finding that the applicant had established a need and the respondent had the means, the court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range amount of $1,510 per month, along with interim child support.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking an interim order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under Society supervision, subject to specified terms and conditions.

The central issue was whether the mother's resumption of alcohol consumption posed a risk to the child.

The court found that given the mother's extensive history of substance abuse, criminal convictions, parole violations, and recent incidents of impaired driving and poor judgment while consuming alcohol, the consumption of alcohol by the mother posed a risk of harm to the child.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to conditions including a prohibition on alcohol consumption while the child was in her care.