Chris Arnone

The applicant brought a motion to terminate spousal support payments to the respondent, which had been paid for 17 years following a 13-year marriage.

The respondent did not appear but provided limited financial disclosure showing she had achieved self-sufficiency with an income of approximately $60,000.

The court found that the respondent's increased income, the length of time since separation, and her self-sufficiency constituted a material change in circumstances.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was ordered terminated effective July 1, 2015, though the applicant's request for retroactive repayment was denied.

The applicant brought a motion to authorize registration of a collateral mortgage against the respondent’s home to secure existing and future child support, spousal support, and related obligations.

The land registry office required consent of the respondent’s current spouse because the property was a matrimonial home under s. 18(1) of the Family Law Act.

The spouse opposed registration except for existing arrears.

Relying on Maroukis v. Maroukis, the court held that a charge imposed by court order arises by operation of law and is not restricted by s. 21(1) of the Family Law Act requiring spousal consent.

The court authorized registration of the collateral mortgage and dispensed with the spouse’s consent.

The applicant sought spousal support following a 12.5-year cohabitation and marriage.

The applicant suffers from mental illness, is unable to work, and receives CPP disability benefits.

The respondent earns approximately $71,500 plus bonuses and supports an adult child from a previous relationship who is attending post-secondary education.

The court found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory support based on need.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 per month in spousal support, commencing prospectively from July 1, 2013, for an indefinite duration, subject to a review de novo after January 1, 2019.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law dispute involving child support, property issues, and whether a custody order should be made for a 17‑year‑old child with special needs.

The court determined interim child support obligations, ordering the respondent to pay guideline support for the younger child and directing both parents to contribute proportionally to post‑secondary expenses for the older child attending college.

The court also made orders regarding orthodontic expenses, insurance coverage, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The request for a custody order for the nearly 17‑year‑old child was declined, with the court emphasizing the limited practical value of custody orders for older teenagers and finding no evidence that the child’s best interests required one.

The applicant sought an order for joint custody of the parties' child and a writ of possession for his solely owned residence, which the respondent had refused to vacate following their separation.

The respondent did not attend the uncontested hearing.

The court formalized the status quo joint custody arrangement.

Finding that section 104 of the Courts of Justice Act did not apply to real property, the court relied on its equitable jurisdiction and the tort of trespass to order a writ of possession in favour of the applicant.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for a utility bill but declined to order occupation rent.