Cheryl Payette

The court considered an application by Misty Wilson to vary the spousal support terms of a 2018 separation agreement, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase and security for support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the cessation of child support obligations and an increase in Dan Wilson’s income, but declined to order retroactive support before January 1, 2023, or require life insurance security.

Spousal support was increased to $1,000 per month effective January 1, 2023.

The applicant mother brought a motion to dismiss the respondent father's Motion to Change, which disputed paternity and child support obligations.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and failed to advance his motion.

The court applied a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, finding that the respondent's wilful and egregious non-compliance, including failure to provide tax returns and pay cost orders, justified dismissing his Motion to Change.

The court determined that no other remedies would suffice given the exceptional circumstances.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment in a family law matter concerning the amendment of a 2014 Final Order.

The respondent sought changes to custody, decision-making, and parenting schedules for two children, N and S, alleging the applicant was in contempt for changing the children's schools without consent.

The applicant sought to maintain sole decision-making and opposed the contempt allegations.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding school and custody issues.

It dismissed the respondent's contempt claim, affirming the applicant's sole decision-making authority in changing schools in the children's best interests.

The court established a new parenting schedule, largely incorporating the children's wishes as reported by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and clarified protocols for passports and communication.

The respondent's request for $5,000 compensation was denied, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a week-on/week-off summer parenting schedule for her 12-year-old daughter and procedural relief to strike portions of the respondent father's affidavit and an exhibit.

The court denied the mother's request for a week-on/week-off schedule due to insufficient evidence, instead granting her a single five-day period of additional parenting time and one make-up overnight.

The court granted the mother's procedural requests, striking a psychologist's letter and several paragraphs from the father's affidavit for failing to meet evidentiary requirements or referencing settlement conference communications.

The mother's request for a finding of parental alienation was denied without prejudice due to lack of proper notice.

Following a family law trial addressing a parental loan claim against matrimonial home proceeds, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, the court determined costs.

The parents of the wife sought $181,000 based on breach of contract or constructive trust but recovered only a smaller unjust enrichment award.

The husband was also successful on the equalization issue, while spousal support issues resulted in divided success.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering settlement offers, the court concluded the husband was overall the more successful party on key issues.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against both the parents and the wife.

Following a three-day family trial, the court rejected a claim by the wife's parents that an oral contract entitled them to a life interest in the matrimonial property or lifetime care in exchange for their financial contributions to two homes containing in-law suites.

Applying unjust enrichment principles, the court found the parents had conferred a tangible benefit through capital contributions and related payments, suffered a corresponding deprivation when the arrangement ended upon the spouses' separation, and established no juristic reason for the spouses to retain the full benefit.

A monetary award of $46,346.05 was ordered from the sale proceeds held in trust, after which the balance was to be divided equally between the spouses.

The court also ordered ongoing spousal support, dismissed the respondent's claim for compensation for adverse tax treatment of earlier support payments, allowed a 50% exclusion of a personal injury settlement from net family property, and fixed an equalization payment.