Cecil Lyon

In a Motion to Change proceeding, the moving party sought to file a reply affidavit after the responding party delivered a 340-page affidavit shortly before the hearing.

The responding party objected, arguing the Family Law Rules do not explicitly authorize reply affidavits on Motions to Change.

The court held that while the Rules do not explicitly authorize a right of reply, it is common practice and necessary for fairness, especially given the responding party's late filing and the long delay caused by the pandemic.

The moving party was permitted to file a reply affidavit limited to new matters.

The moving party brought an interim motion to suspend his obligation to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support and to suspend enforcement of the support order by the Family Responsibility Office, pending his Motion to Change.

The moving party argued he was in poor health and unable to pay the increased insurance premiums or support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party had not provided full financial disclosure, particularly regarding $1 million in proceeds from a property sale, and had not sought a stay of the underlying support order.

The moving party was ordered to maintain $500,000 in life insurance, with the responding party paying half the premium pending the final determination.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant mother to cooperate with an update to a Custody/Access Assessment and to share the cost of the update.

The respondent also sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of the children's medical and educational records.

The court ordered the applicant to cooperate with the update to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled, but directed the respondent to pay the cost of the update.

The court also ordered the applicant to execute the requested consents.

Following a motion dealing with custody, access, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

While success on the motion was largely divided, the respondent was successful on the significant issue of spousal support.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's decision to litigate in French was unreasonable or warranted higher costs.

After considering the offers to settle and the principles of family law costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay $4,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and claimed retroactive and prospective spousal support under the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act.

She alleged the respondent failed to disclose material assets, the support was inadequate, and she was vulnerable when signing.

The court found the agreement was negotiated with independent legal advice, full financial disclosure was made, and there was no unconscionability or duress.

Applying the Miglin analysis, the court held the agreement met the objectives of the Divorce Act and the applicant failed to demonstrate an entitlement to further support.

The application was dismissed.