Gillian Tadman

The respondent father brought a motion for a temporary stay of child and spousal support enforcement pending a motion to change.

The parties consented to a temporary suspension of child support during the months the child attended university outside Canada, and a stay of enforcement of support arrears.

The court dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the father failed to establish a strong prima facie case for a temporary reduction in spousal support or a complete stay of child support during the summer months.

This was a motion and cross-motion for a temporary parenting order and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties, who had separated but remained living under the same roof, sought differing parenting plans and home arrangements for their two young children.

The Applicant Father proposed shared care, including a "bird's nest" arrangement or a 2-2-3 schedule, and was willing to move out.

The Respondent Mother sought primary care and exclusive possession of the home, arguing she was the primary caregiver.

The court determined that shared decision-making and a 2-2-3 parenting schedule were in the children's best interests, finding the father had been sufficiently involved.

The court granted the Respondent Mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, considering her lack of alternative accommodation and the parties' financial positions.

Financial orders included differential child support from the father and equal sharing of matrimonial home expenses and proportionate sharing of childcare costs.

Following a previous decision determining the date of cohabitation, the court finalized the issues of spousal support and property distribution.

The court found the mother was entitled to needs-based spousal support for a limited period, terminating on December 31, 2021, and awarded her $23,009 net of tax.

The net sale proceeds of the parties' property were distributed according to the parties' agreement, with the mother receiving $64,584.40 and the father receiving $289,775.23.

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where the respondent's pleadings had been struck.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs for the trial, totaling $108,781.39, citing her reasonable offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

The court also awarded the applicant $5,500 in partial recovery costs for an adjourned Divisional Court motion.

The trial costs were ordered to be enforceable as support due to child support being a principal issue in the proceedings.

The Applicant sought sole custody, therapeutic supervised access, and child support.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with court orders and misconduct during access visits.

The court granted the Applicant sole custody, ordered no access for the Respondent (subject to a future therapeutic plan at his expense), fixed ongoing and retroactive child support, and dismissed the Applicant's request to declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant but imposed an order under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules preventing him from bringing further proceedings until outstanding costs are paid.