Carol Struthers

The respondent father brought a motion to stay a 2011 interim child and spousal support order and its enforcement, after unilaterally ceasing payments for several years.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure, retroactive child support, and a preservation order.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to meet the heavy onus to vary an interim order, as he did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case, hardship, urgency, or clean hands.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering retroactive child support from 2017 based on the father's increased income, and continued a preservation order against the father's RRSP.

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased ongoing child support, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

She argued the respondent father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose pension and RRSP withdrawals, which she claimed should be included in his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the claims, finding no blameworthy conduct and ruling that the withdrawals constituted non-recurring income that should be excluded from the child support calculation.

Ongoing child support was varied based solely on the father's employment income, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment that resulted in dismissal of the action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court reiterated the general principle that costs follow the event and rejected submissions that costs should not be awarded.

Although the plaintiff raised concerns regarding mental health issues and impecuniosity, the court concluded that these circumstances did not justify departing from the ordinary rule.

The defendant’s claimed costs were found to be reasonable in light of the work performed and the parties’ bills of costs.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount claimed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action to recover three alleged loans made between 1998 and 2000.

The defendant argued the claims were statute-barred under the former Limitations Act, which imposed a six‑year limitation period.

The court found the first loan became due in 1999 and the other two loans were properly characterized as demand loans whose causes of action arose when the funds were advanced.

The plaintiff failed to produce written acknowledgements restarting the limitation period and provided insufficient medical evidence to establish incapacity suspending the limitation period.

The court held there was no trust or equitable claim capable of avoiding the limitation defence and no genuine issue requiring a trial.

On an interim parenting motion, the applicant sought sole custody consistent with a s. 30 assessment recommending sole decision‑making authority and expanded access to the respondent.

The respondent sought interim sole custody or, alternatively, a shared parenting arrangement.

The court held that recommendations of an assessor should generally not be implemented on an interim basis absent urgent circumstances and that the status quo had largely been created by unilateral conduct limiting the respondent’s involvement.

Finding both parents capable and loving but engaged in high conflict, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 week‑about parenting schedule with decision‑making authority remaining with the applicant, along with communication and dispute‑resolution provisions including parenting coordination.