Deborah R. Squires

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce spousal support, arguing his early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought an increase in support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that an event known and intended at the time of the original support order, such as early retirement, cannot later be relied upon as a material change.

The court emphasized that a support payor cannot voluntarily reduce their income to avoid spousal support obligations, and the focus remains on their income-earning ability.

The applicant sought an order to remove a mature black walnut tree located on the property line between his and the respondents' properties, arguing that falling nuts hitting his roof constituted a private nuisance.

The court applied the two-part test for private nuisance, finding that the interference was neither substantial nor unreasonable.

The court noted the nuts only fell for a few weeks a year, and the property was located in a heritage conservation district known for its mature trees.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a lengthy family law trial primarily concerning parenting arrangements for two children, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found the trial result to be mixed but concluded that the respondent was the successful party because her offer to settle closely approximated the ultimate judgment.

The court held that an amendment to a compliant offer to settle may remain valid for costs purposes even if the amendment does not strictly comply with the formal requirements of Rule 18(4), provided it is clear and unambiguous.

However, both parties engaged in conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the trial, and the respondent advanced a litigation position inconsistent with her willingness to accept joint custody.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis and reduced by 50 percent.

A custody and parenting dispute arose following the separation of the parties, who had two young children.

Both parents sought sole custody, alleging significant interpersonal conflict, manipulative behaviour, and communication difficulties.

The court found both parents capable and loving caregivers but determined that their conflictual relationship made a sole custody order inappropriate.

Applying best‑interests principles under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act, and guidance from appellate authority regarding joint custody, the court concluded that joint custody was appropriate to preserve both parental relationships while maintaining stability for the children.

The children’s primary residence was ordered to remain with the respondent, with structured parenting time for the applicant.

Financial claims were largely deferred pending a full property trial, while the existing temporary child support order remained in place.