Darlene Summers

The respondent brought a motion seeking suspension of both spousal and child support pending resolution of family property and financial issues, and an order for the sale of certain properties.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking reinstatement of support, an interim disbursement for a forensic accountant, and the addition of a third party co-owner of certain recreational properties.

The court held that disputes over alleged misuse of company funds, property sales, and household expenses were matters for equalization and financial accounting rather than grounds to suspend support obligations.

The court also found the third-party co-owner should be added to assist in resolving property-related financial issues.

The request to suspend support was dismissed and the parties were ordered to retain an accountant to analyze their financial affairs.

Following her successful defence of a motion to change an existing spousal support order, the respondent on the motion sought costs of $22,000.

The moving party argued for a reduced award of $12,000, citing the respondent's failure to timely disclose changes in her education plans and the tax deductibility of her costs.

The court rejected the tax deductibility argument but considered the delayed disclosure.

Noting the respondent's successful offer to settle, the court awarded her costs of $17,500 plus HST.

On a motion to change spousal support under the Divorce Act, the moving party argued that the recipient spouse's failure to complete a master's degree, decision to pursue teacher's college instead, and alleged non-disclosure before settlement amounted to a material change in circumstances.

The court held that, even under the parties' agreement lowering the foreseeability component of the material change threshold, the moving party failed to establish a material change warranting variation.

In the context of a long-term marriage and an existing review clause, the recipient spouse remained entitled to flexibility and time to work toward self-sufficiency.

The court also refused to look behind the original order based on alleged non-disclosure during settlement negotiations.