James Higginson

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal a case conference order made in a family law proceeding.

At the case conference, the judge ordered the matrimonial home listed for sale and froze the respondent’s RRSP except for payments required to maintain the mortgage.

The moving party argued the orders were made without instructions or consent and were beyond the court’s authority at a conference under Rule 17(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that notice of the requested orders had been given and that the evidence before the conference judge justified asset preservation orders.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate child support for his three children and retroactively reduce his support obligations due to job loss and health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances, terminating support for the eldest child who was no longer a 'child of the marriage' and reducing support for the other two children based on the father's imputed income.

However, the court denied the father's request for a retroactive reduction prior to the date he filed his motion, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure or address the issue promptly.

The court also adjudicated various section 7 extraordinary expenses claimed by the mother.