Erin Lepine

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding child and spousal support due to changes in children's residential arrangements.

The respondent denied one child was a child of the marriage and sought to increase spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, terminated the applicant's child support obligation, and ordered the respondent to pay child support for certain periods.

The court also ordered reimbursement of overpaid child support by the applicant.

The spousal support entitlement was found to be both needs-based and compensatory, with specific calculations deferred.

The applicant sought to vary a final order for spousal support, requesting termination of his obligation due to job loss, health issues, and retirement.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant's retirement was voluntary and due to misconduct.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the applicant's job loss, extensive efforts to find new employment, advanced age, and deteriorating health.

While not terminating support due to its compensatory and non-compensatory elements and the lack of pension equalization, the court reduced the spousal support obligation to $1 per month, effective retroactively, acknowledging the applicant's current inability to pay.

Arrears accumulated prior to the effective date of reduction were to be repaid monthly, with a charge on the applicant's estate.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support, relying on a marriage contract signed in 2005.

The wife brought a cross-motion to dismiss the summary judgment motion and to determine the date of separation.

The court found that the marriage contract's property releases were ambiguous and did not constitute an absolute bar to equalization, creating a genuine issue for trial.

Regarding spousal support, the court applied the Miglin framework and found that the wife's catastrophic and unforeseeable health and financial changes since the marriage contract was signed created a genuine issue for trial as to whether the agreement still met the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the date of separation due to conflicting evidence requiring credibility assessments.

The husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Costs decision following a family law proceeding concerning recognition in Ontario of an Alberta parenting order requiring the return of a child and equal parenting time.

The court had previously declined to recognize the Alberta order.

Although the respondent was substantially successful and had made a settlement offer similar to the court’s ultimate decision, the court considered the conduct of both parties.

The applicant’s litigation conduct was criticized, but the respondent’s unilateral relocation with the child from Alberta to Ontario contributed to the dispute.

Balancing these considerations under Family Law Rule 24 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court departed from the presumption that the successful party receive costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a prior order by declaring that an adult daughter with disabilities was no longer a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and by terminating the parties’ obligation to maintain life insurance for her benefit.

The evidence showed that the adult child had lived independently since 2003, maintained full-time employment with benefits, managed her own finances and accumulated substantial savings.

The court held that despite ongoing disabilities and some parental assistance, the adult child had successfully withdrawn from parental charge.

This constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and s. 14 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court declared that the adult child was no longer a child of the marriage and vacated the life insurance obligation securing support.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta custody and parenting order requiring the return of the parties’ child to Alberta and providing for shared parenting time.

The court considered s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act governing recognition of extra‑provincial custody orders and whether the respondent had received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Alberta proceeding.

The court found the respondent had not been given reasonable notice and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also concluded that the Alberta order appeared to have been made without sufficient consideration of the child’s best interests and was therefore contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court refused recognition of the Alberta order and held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody and access due to the child’s habitual residence in Ontario resulting from undue delay in enforcement proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion during a family law trial to exclude the respondent's expert evidence regarding domestic violence.

The applicant argued the report was served late, was not relevant to the jurisdictional issue, and was unreliable.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the evidence relevant to the overriding consideration of the child's best interests and the potential for serious harm.

The court held that the late service was not fatal under the Family Law Rules and that reliability concerns should be addressed through cross-examination.

The motion was dismissed.

Following cross-motions in a family law matter concerning interim access, custody, and child support, the court delivered an oral ruling granting the father interim access while declining to determine custody and requiring financial disclosure for child support.

The court later considered written submissions on costs.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24, including the time spent, the complexity of the issues, and the mixed results achieved by the parties, the court determined that neither party achieved clear success.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motions.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench custody order requiring the return of the child and establishing shared custody.

The respondent opposed recognition and brought a cross‑motion to transfer the proceeding to Haileybury, Ontario, and requested that an Ontario court assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The court held that a triable issue existed regarding whether the respondent had been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Alberta order was made, precluding summary judgment under s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the proceeding was transferred to Haileybury on the balance of convenience.

The court further held that Ontario jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Act required determination after a full hearing with viva voce evidence.