Hugh C. McLachlan

Blake Gennoe moved to vary a 2014 spousal support order, seeking to eliminate monthly support and arrears payments due to a material change in circumstances related to his health.

The former spouse, Deborah L. Gennoe (Ms. Laframboise), conceded a material change but argued for a reduction rather than elimination of support.

The court found that while Mr. Gennoe's health prevented him from working as an insurance broker, he failed to prove an inability to earn income in other fields.

Similarly, Ms. Laframboise's claim of inability to work was not fully accepted.

The court imputed income to both parties based on minimum wage, considering their ages and work histories.

Consequently, the court reduced ongoing monthly spousal support to $325 and monthly arrears payments to $375.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success.

Following earlier family law proceedings, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis alleging the respondent failed to provide proper financial disclosure despite a prior court order.

The court considered Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, which requires costs to be addressed promptly after each procedural step.

Relying on appellate authority, the court held that it could not award costs for earlier case conferences where no costs orders had been made at the time.

After removing those amounts and other fees previously ruled non-compensable, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her two children from Ontario to Thompson, Manitoba to reside with her common-law partner.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought a change in custody.

The court considered the factors established in Gordon v. Goertz and found that the mother's relocation was in the best interests of the children.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate and maintained her custody, while establishing an access schedule for the father consisting of three annual lengthy visits and regular video communication.

A child protection matter under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young sisters whose mother was unable to provide adequate care due to persistent drug abuse.

The Children's Aid Society sought a final order for Crown Wardship without access to permit adoption by the paternal grandparents.

The maternal grandparents sought custody with access provisions.

The court found that while Crown Wardship would provide permanency, a custody order under section 57.1 of the CFSA was in the children's best interests because it would preserve the children's beneficial relationship with their maternal grandparents while ensuring their safety and stability with the paternal grandparents.