Erroll G. Treslan

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the applicant mother’s claims for spousal support, property division, and sole custody.

The mother filed no responding materials and failed to appear on the motion.

The court held that summary judgment was not appropriate for the spousal support and property claims because the evidentiary record was incomplete, largely due to disclosure deficiencies.

However, relying on an uncontradicted Office of the Children’s Lawyer report and the father’s affidavit evidence, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on custody and access and granted the father sole custody with access to the mother.

The remaining financial claims were permitted to proceed to trial.

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support and child support including section 7 expenses, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although success at trial was largely divided, the applicant had made a written offer to settle shortly before trial that was close to the outcome ultimately ordered.

The court held that while the offer did not satisfy the strict requirements for presumptive cost consequences under Family Law Rule 18(14), it could still be considered under Rule 18(16) when assessing costs.

Taking into account the divided success, the respondent’s limited ability to pay, and the policy objective of encouraging settlement offers, the court awarded nominal costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior orders seeking termination of child support for four adult children and termination of spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but held that the respondent remained entitled to spousal support on a needs basis due to significant income disparity and ongoing health issues.

Spousal support was continued at the previously ordered amount of $800 per month with a potential review after August 1, 2016.

Child support was terminated retroactively on different dates corresponding to the children’s completion of post-secondary education, and the applicant was entitled to credits for overpayments.

The court also found that spousal support ordered in 1998 remained separate from a later child support order, resulting in spousal support arrears of $79,807.32.

On a family law motion involving multiple interim issues following separation, the court considered custody and access, spousal support, travel restrictions, financial disclosure, and ancillary matters.

The respondent sought sole custody or shared parenting, but the court declined to disturb the existing temporary status quo pending involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and fuller evidentiary development.

The court ordered mid‑range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, adjusted downward to account partially for the applicant’s ongoing expenses maintaining the former family home in another jurisdiction.

The court varied an earlier order to permit the parties to travel with the children within Canada and to Ohio, but declined broader international travel.

Mutual financial disclosure and other interim directions were also ordered.

The appellant municipality appealed a costs order made against it after it sought to enforce a support assignment through the Family Responsibility Office.

The support obligation had previously ceased, but the assignor had falsely certified it was active.

The Divisional Court found that while the lower court had jurisdiction to award costs against the appellant because it became a party by filing a Notice of Financial Interest, the costs order was unjustified on the merits.

The appellant had no reason to doubt the assignment's validity and its failure to attend the motion was not unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order against the appellant was set aside.