Emily E. Murray

An appeal from a trial judge's order setting aside a separation agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and section 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had set aside the agreement in its entirety and recalculated spousal support.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge erred in setting aside the entire agreement under section 56(4), the spousal support terms did not comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act under the Miglin analysis.

The court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the separation agreement but modifying the spousal support provisions to remove the cohabitation clause and make support indefinite, while preserving the original quantum of $28,800 annually.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, including equal parenting or extended overnight access, and joint custody of their seven-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking interim sole custody, Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, and retroactive child support.

The court declined to make an interim sole custody order, finding the parents could communicate on important decisions.

The court granted the father extended overnight access, finding it in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's concerns about the father's parenting abilities and mental health.

Retroactive child support claims were dismissed, but an adjustment for 2018 child support was ordered, and the father agreed to pay his proportionate share of certain Section 7 expenses.