Ian R. Fisher

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a five-and-a-half-year marriage with three children.

The mother sought a defined parenting schedule and retroactive child support, while the father sought a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that a 50-50 shared parenting schedule was not in the children's best interests as they had thrived in the primary care of their mother, but modified the father's parenting time to be more balanced.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support, finding she had known the father received free room and board but unreasonably delayed in seeking increased support.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a spousal support order, seeking a reduction from $17,224 to $4,835 per month due to a disability that significantly reduced his income from $600,000 to $104,400 annually.

The court found a material and long-lasting change in circumstances, a strong prima facie case for variation, and that continuing the existing support would cause hardship to the payor.

The motion was deemed urgent, partly because the income reduction predated the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted an interim variation, reducing spousal support to $4,835 per month and staying the enforcement of accumulated arrears.

The Applicant sought to increase spousal support from a 2010 divorce order, requesting $1327.00 per month for nine years, citing the termination of child support as a material change.

The Respondent sought to terminate spousal support entirely.

The court found the Applicant was still in need of support but noted a pattern of "under-performing" in her career efforts.

The court declined to increase support based on the Respondent's post-separation income increase, finding no direct link to the Applicant's contributions.

Spousal support was ordered to continue at the original amount of $375.00 per month for a further two years, after which it would terminate.

This decision addresses two motions within a partition and sale application concerning the distribution of property sale proceeds.

Annette Curtis sought immediate one-third distribution to each party, while Lenn Curtis sought to preserve the funds in trust or court pending an oppression application.

The court found jurisdiction under Rule 66.03.

Lenn Curtis's request was akin to a Mareva injunction, but the court found the test not fully met due to delay and lack of evidence of asset dissipation risk.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Partition Act, finding that the property issues were intertwined with the ongoing oppression application and that immediate distribution would be oppressive and cause hardship.

Consequently, Annette Curtis's motion for distribution was dismissed, and the funds were ordered to remain in trust or be paid into court, with the application adjourned to be heard with the oppression application.

Following the breakdown of a long marriage, the applicant sought ongoing spousal support, alleging both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement.

The court found no compensatory basis because both spouses had maintained successful careers and shared household and parenting responsibilities without significant economic sacrifice by either party.

However, given the substantial income disparity and the marital standard of living during the final year of the relationship, the court found entitlement to transitional non-compensatory spousal support.

Applying the Divorce Act and guidance from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered time-limited support to assist the applicant in adjusting to a lower post-separation standard of living.

Child support arrears were also ordered.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, spousal support, and the equalization of net family property following a 17-year marriage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to average the husband's income over three years for child support purposes and to award $5,000 monthly in spousal support, finding the allocation of disposable income reasonable.

The court also upheld the trial judge's treatment of post-separation mortgage payments as a voluntary benefit to the wife.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the husband's golf club membership, finding insufficient evidence to determine its value or status as property for equalization.