Cecil J. Lyon

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support following separation and the breakdown of a shared parenting arrangement for three children.

The respondent opposed retroactive support and brought a cross‑motion seeking relief from any child support obligation based on undue hardship due to disability‑related expenses, and sought leave to amend pleadings.

The court declined to order retroactive support on a temporary motion, finding factual and financial disputes better suited to negotiation or trial.

The court also rejected the respondent’s undue hardship claim, finding his income substantial and insufficient evidence to meet the high threshold under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent was ordered to pay guideline support if parenting time fell below 40%, with set‑off under s. 9 applicable if parenting time exceeded that threshold; leave to amend pleadings was granted.

The applicant sought reinstatement of spousal support after the respondent unilaterally suspended payments under Minutes of Settlement resolving family law issues following separation.

The respondent claimed the applicant removed household items contrary to the agreement and relied on a clause permitting suspension of support pending an accounting.

The court found ambiguity and contradiction in the settlement terms governing division of household chattels and concluded the agreement did not clearly resolve the issue.

As a result, the respondent was not entitled to suspend support payments.

The court ordered an accounting of household chattels before an arbitrator and directed that ongoing support and arrears be paid into court pending resolution.

The parties were unable to agree on a parenting time schedule and each submitted a proposed schedule to the court.

The court preferred the applicant’s proposed schedule and ordered that it form the basis of the parenting arrangement, subject to a modification addressing professional development days occurring before the respondent’s parenting weekends.

The order directed that such professional development days and the preceding Thursday overnight be added to the respondent’s parenting time, extending his time from Wednesday at 4 p.m. until the following Monday morning.

Both parties sought costs and submitted bills of costs.

The court found the outcome reflected mixed success and declined to award costs.

On a motion concerning temporary custody and access following separation, the father sought shared parenting of the parties’ three young children after the mother unilaterally terminated an interim two-day rotation arrangement.

The mother raised concerns about the father’s ability to provide adequate care due to a catastrophic spinal injury that left him quadriplegic and reliant on significant assistance.

The court emphasized the importance of maximizing children’s contact with both parents and noted that the matter was at an early stage, with a custody and access assessment anticipated.

A temporary arrangement was ordered granting joint custody with parenting time approximately 60% to the mother and 40% to the father, along with directions to develop a workable schedule and obtain a professional assessment.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, occupation rent for the matrimonial home, and an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant interim relief, noting the matter was already scheduled for trial within two months and that the requested orders would require credibility findings and fuller financial disclosure.

The court held that issues relating to occupation rent, ownership interests, equalization, and entitlement to spousal support should be determined by the trial judge after a full evidentiary hearing.

Concerns also existed regarding incomplete financial disclosure and the respondent’s ongoing payment of household and child-related expenses.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.

On a motion for temporary child support under the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court considered whether income should be imputed to an unemployed parent and at what level.

The payor parent had been unemployed for several years following the loss of a high-paying job but asserted ongoing efforts to secure comparable employment.

The court held that a parent with child support obligations must earn what they are capable of earning and may be imputed income on an interim basis where prolonged unemployment persists.

Relying on prior earning history and limited evidence of current earning capacity, the court imputed income of $40,000 annually and ordered temporary guideline child support and proportional section 7 expenses.

Issues of retroactive support, retroactive special expenses, and life insurance were deferred to trial.