George McFadyen

The applicant mother brought a motion for non-party disclosure of her adult son's school records from the school board, to support her claim in a Motion to Change that he had withdrawn from parental control.

The respondent father consented, but the school board opposed, citing statutory privilege under s. 266 of the Education Act.

The court held that while report cards and attendance records are privileged as they relate to the improvement of instruction, the student's enrollment form is not covered by the privilege.

The court ordered the school board to produce the enrollment form but dismissed the motion for disclosure of other student records.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking joint custody and increased parenting time, including overnight visits, with the parties' infant child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the father was incapable of caring for the child and that overnight visits would disrupt the child's breastfeeding schedule.

The court found that the mother's resistance was punitive and that the child's best interests required fostering a relationship with the father.

The court ordered an interim schedule granting the father one day visit and one overnight visit per week, but declined to order joint custody at this stage.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act seeking termination of child support after the parties’ daughter began residing with him, as well as prospective variation of spousal support upon his planned retirement.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in spousal support based on the father’s increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the child had resided with the father since 2012 and held that the mother was not exercising shared parenting under the Child Support Guidelines.

Child support was terminated retroactive to May 1, 2014 and the mother was ordered to repay amounts received thereafter.

The court rejected the mother’s claim for increased spousal support but ordered a prospective reduction following the father’s retirement, with a time-limited continuation of support.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior child support order.

The respondent had relocated to England and sought to rely on a provisional order from an English family court reflecting his reduced income as a landscape architect after leaving higher-paying employment as a boilermaker.

The court imputed income of $80,000 to the respondent, finding that his change in employment was voluntary and undertaken for personal reasons.

The court recalculated child support obligations, adjusted section 7 extraordinary expenses, and added unpaid post-secondary education expenses to the arrears.

The respondent’s pension from his former union was ordered to stand as security for accumulated child support arrears.

The applicant sought retroactive child and spousal support, challenging a 2002 separation agreement that terminated spousal support when the youngest child turned 18.

The court applied the Miglin framework, finding the termination clause failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act given the 20-year traditional marriage.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at $1,000 per month.

Applying the D.B.S. framework for retroactive child support, the court imputed income to the applicant and calculated a net overpayment by the respondent of $10,802.

Retroactive spousal support was fixed at $13,900, resulting in a net payment of $3,102 to the applicant.