Heather A. McGee

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court previously denied the motion, allowing the respondent father to remain in the home.

The mother renewed her motion, providing evidence of vitriolic and threatening text messages sent by the father.

The court found that the text messages constituted 'violence' under section 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act, as they were intended to intimidate and caused psychological harm.

Given the violence and the risk of exposing the child to adult conflict, the court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Following a five‑day trial varying child support and determining income for support purposes, the court addressed costs.

The applicant father sought partial recovery of $45,000 in costs after successfully obtaining a variation of child support from May 2006 onward.

The court considered the presumption of costs under the Family Law Rules, the parties’ settlement offers, and the proportionality and reasonableness factors under r. 24.

Although the applicant achieved greater success and had made an offer more favourable than the trial result, the court reduced the requested amount due to proportionality concerns and the applicant’s unreasonable conduct in failing to pay child support for 44 months.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought an ex-parte emergency motion seeking sole custody of the parties' two daughters and termination of the respondent father's access, alleging volatile behaviour and substance abuse.

The court initially granted a temporary restraining order.

On the return of the motion, the father provided responding materials denying the allegations and explaining the context of the incidents.

The court found the father's evidence equally credible to the mother's, noted the mother's pre-emptive actions, and concluded there was no basis to terminate access or vary custody prior to a full hearing and CAS investigation.

The temporary order was terminated, and the shared parenting schedule under the separation agreement was reinstated.

The applicant brought a motion to change a separation agreement seeking retroactive increases in table child support and payment of various claimed section 7 special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances and recalculated table child support based on updated income information and the changing residency and educational circumstances of the parties’ children.

Most of the applicant’s claims for section 7 expenses were dismissed for lack of evidence that the expenses were extraordinary, necessary, or incurred with the respondent’s consent as required by the agreement and the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed arrears of table support, set revised ongoing support obligations, stayed enforcement of certain arrears filed with the Family Responsibility Office, and ordered a structured process to reconcile previously collected health-related expenses.

In a family law motion to change, the court addressed competing retroactive claims concerning table child support and section 7 special expenses after a long-running post-separation dispute.

Applying the material change threshold, the court rejected several alleged changes but accepted that prolonged bankruptcy and a period of significant illness created an unanticipated change warranting variation.

Child support was recalculated for multiple periods based on adjusted annual incomes, replacing prior support amounts effective May 1, 2006.

On special expenses, the court exercised discretion to resolve disputed historical claims and set an equal-sharing framework going forward for agreed section 7 expenses, subject to later readjustment by income.

The responding party brought a motion to dismiss a motion to change seeking termination of spousal support following her remarriage.

The existing divorce order incorporated minutes of settlement providing for non-reviewable and non-variable spousal support until a fixed termination date.

The moving party argued that the recipient’s remarriage justified termination of support.

The court held that remarriage alone does not terminate spousal support and that the parties had expressly agreed the support obligation was non-reviewable and non-variable regardless of any change in circumstances.

As the motion disclosed no reasonable legal claim under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, it was struck.

The appellant father appealed a final order requiring him to pay prospective and retroactive child support, arguing the motions judge erred in finding his income, providing inadequate reasons, and misapplying the tests for retroactive support and undue hardship.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the income determination and held the reasons were adequate.

While the motions judge conflated the 'undue hardship' test for prospective support with the 'hardship' factor for retroactive support, the Divisional Court applied the correct test and upheld the retroactive award due to the father's long history of underpayment and failure to disclose income.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following separation after a long-term marriage.

The respondent brought cross-motions seeking a preservation order over property, amendment of pleadings, and child support for an adult child.

The court declined to order table child support for adult children due to insufficient evidence regarding their status as children of the marriage but ordered table support for the minor child based on the respondent’s income.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court found a prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support and ordered monthly payments within the guideline range.

The respondent’s request for a preservation order under the Family Law Act was dismissed due to lack of evidence of dissipation of assets or prima facie entitlement to equalization.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, financial disclosure, and reimbursement of moving and storage expenses following separation.

The court found the respondent’s financial disclosure unreliable and inconsistent with his lifestyle and therefore imputed income based on his expenses.

Departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines custodial payor range, the court awarded higher interim support to reflect the circumstances surrounding the separation and the applicant’s financial vulnerability.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and reimbursement of storage fees.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $4,260 per month pending trial.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and substantial retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $700,000 to the respondent father.

The court declined to determine custody on the limited interim record but confirmed that the child would primarily reside with the mother in the matrimonial home.

The request for exclusive possession was denied because the evidence did not establish that the father’s continued presence posed a threat to the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court assessed the father’s interim income at $325,000 and ordered table child support and high-range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to November 1, 2011.

Requests for section 7 expenses and further disclosure were deferred.

Following the dismissal of a family law motion seeking certificates of pending litigation over properties and the addition of the respondent’s parents as parties, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court found the motion against the parents to have been recklessly pursued because the issues had already been litigated and no material change justified revisiting them.

Substantial costs were awarded to the parents due to their complete success and the unreasonable conduct of the moving party.

The respondent spouse, who largely took no position on the motion, received a reduced costs award reflecting limited participation and proportionality principles.

The applicant wife brought an emergency, ex parte motion for a preservation order over the respondent husband's assets, primarily his recently commuted pension.

The husband had failed to disclose the details of his retirement package and the transfer of pension funds.

The court found the urgency threshold was met due to the husband's lack of transparency, but held the requested order over all assets was disproportionate.

The court granted a partial preservation order over two GICs and the matrimonial home.

No costs were awarded to the applicant because her counsel failed to give notice of the motion to the husband's active counsel.

In a family law motion concerning parenting issues, the applicant sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act and an order permitting questioning of the respondent.

The court approved the assessment and apportioned its anticipated cost of $6,000 according to the parties’ relative incomes, requiring the applicant to pay 80% and the respondent 20%, with any excess payable by the applicant.

The motion for questioning was dismissed because the statutory criteria under the Family Law Rules were not met and the proposed questioning would not advance the determination of the children’s best interests.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and awarded substantial costs against the applicant after considering settlement offers and litigation conduct.

In a custody dispute following a short marriage, the applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties’ young child and raised numerous allegations of abuse against the respondent father.

The court found the mother’s evidence unreliable, identifying inconsistencies between her oral testimony and written materials and concluding that the abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court determined that the mother had deliberately removed the child from the father’s life, withheld information, and demonstrated an unwillingness to support the child’s relationship with the father.

Applying the best‑interests factors under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the father’s parenting plan to be more child‑focused and stable.

Sole custody was granted to the father with defined access to the mother, and the mother’s equalization claim was dismissed.