Gary Blaney

The applicant brought an application for equalization of property and spousal support.

The respondent argued that a cohabitation agreement signed prior to their marriage barred her claims.

The court held a bifurcated trial to determine the validity, enforceability, and content of the agreement.

The court found that there was adequate financial disclosure and no duress when the agreement was signed.

However, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent had torn up the agreement shortly after they moved into their new home, intending to terminate it.

Consequently, the court ruled that the agreement was no longer in effect and did not bind the parties at the date of separation.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2008 consent order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations due to his planned retirement at age 62, his remarriage, and the applicant's re-partnering and turning 65.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in support based on the respondent's post-separation income increases.

The court found that the respondent's voluntary retirement, the applicant's age, and the parties' new relationships did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim for retroactive support, noting the support was needs-based.

Both the motion to change and the request for retroactive increase were dismissed.

The moving party in a family law dispute sought to be declared a special party and have a litigation guardian appointed due to severe depression and anxiety.

She also sought to seal her counsel's affidavit to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The responding party opposed the motion, seeking an independent medical examination, the unsealing of the affidavit, the questioning of the moving party's psychologist, and further disclosure regarding a long-term disability claim.

The court granted the special party declaration and appointed the litigation guardian, finding the moving party incapable of instructing counsel.

The court sealed the counsel's affidavit, denied the medical examination, permitted limited questioning of the psychologist, and ordered partial disclosure of the disability claim.

The court issued an addendum to a previous costs endorsement to correct an error regarding the scale of costs.

The original endorsement mistakenly stated that the respondent's costs were to be paid at a substantial indemnity rate.

The addendum corrected this to state that the costs are to be paid at a full indemnity rate.

Following a motion to change regarding a child's school enrollment and a cross-motion to vary custody, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant father was more successful overall, as the respondent mother's cross-motion to vary joint custody was an unreasonable and overly aggressive response.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle and the time spent by counsel, ultimately awarding the applicant father fixed costs of $12,299.19.

Following a successful motion and trial of issues to enforce a settlement agreement, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis totaling over $95,000.

The respondent argued for a set-off or a lower award due to her modest financial resources.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, noting that full indemnity was not warranted and considering proportionality and the respondent's ability to pay.

The respondent was ordered to pay a global amount of $40,221.22 in monthly installments over three years.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant's Change Information Form filed in support of a motion to vary a final spousal support order.

The respondent argued that the impugned paragraphs contained allegations of events predating the final order and offended the principles of issue estoppel or res judicata.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraphs raised a question of law regarding issue estoppel, the trial judge was in a better position to determine the relevance of the evidence in the context of the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act.

Following a five‑day family law trial involving the validity of a marriage contract, spousal support, and child support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was completely successful in defending the validity of the marriage contract, which consumed most of the trial, while success on spousal support was divided and the respondent was more successful on child support.

Both parties were found to have behaved unreasonably during the litigation, including unfounded allegations regarding the contract and failures of financial disclosure.

Applying proportionality and the factors in subrule 24(11), the court assessed partial indemnity costs across the issues.

A net costs award was ordered in favour of the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement reached shortly before trial in a family law dispute and sought judgment in accordance with the settlement, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an order for its sale.

The respondent resiled from the agreement, alleging inadequate financial disclosure and asserting that pressure and circumstances surrounding the signing of the settlement undermined the formation of a binding contract.

The court held that the applicant had provided adequate financial disclosure and determined that this issue did not raise a genuine issue requiring trial.

However, conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances under which the settlement was negotiated and executed raised credibility concerns that could not be resolved on the motion.

The motion to enforce the settlement was therefore dismissed and directions were ordered for a trial of the issue of whether a binding settlement contract existed.