Elizabeth M. Osborne

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship.

The applicant brought a claim for equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and other financial issues.

The court determined the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $450,549.69 via a pension transfer.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $6,300 in spousal support arrears and a $500 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, while dismissing the claim to apportion their adult son's student debt.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a final order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children to Tamworth to live with her new partner.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking custody, shared parenting, or increased access, and the paternal grandparents sought specific access.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move would be highly disruptive to the children, particularly given one child's special needs and their strong attachment to the family farm and paternal grandparents.

The mother's request to relocate was dismissed.

The court ordered extended access for the father and a specific access schedule for the grandparents.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking retroactive child support for a specified period and contribution toward special and extraordinary expenses under s.7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The motion arose in the context of a lengthy post‑separation dispute involving shifting parenting arrangements and prior court orders addressing custody and shared parenting.

The court found there was conflicting evidence regarding the parties’ financial obligations and the children’s residence during the relevant periods.

The issues, including competing retroactive child support claims, required credibility findings and factual determinations inappropriate for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed toward trial.

Following a motion for spousal support and a cross‑motion regarding the release of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, the court determined the issue of costs.

Both parties had served Offers to Settle addressing different aspects of the dispute, but neither offer was accepted.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the court’s decision matched her offer.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to elevated costs because she could have resolved the cross‑motion by accepting the respondent’s offer and because portions of her offer addressed relief not sought in her motion.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount after considering the Family Law Rules.