Janet Miliaris

The Applicant sought urgent, ex parte leave to bring a motion to change a final order dated July 22, 2024, less than six months after its issuance.

The motion was brought under s. 37(3) of the Family Law Act, or alternatively, as a variation under the Divorce Act.

The court found that the proposed motion was an attempt to reargue issues already decided by a previous seven-day trial, and that the applicant's affidavit provided no evidence of a material change in circumstances since the prior order.

Citing principles of abuse of process, issue estoppel, and res judicata, and the court's duty of active case management under the Family Law Rules, the court dismissed the motion for leave, concluding there was no air of reality to the claim for a material change.

The respondent, Kevin Ross Blainey, brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation.

The applicant, Dawn Marie Blainey a.k.a.

Dawn Marie Demeter, sought to push back the spousal support review and claim retroactive child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances to vary the spousal support review or grant retroactive child support.

The court granted the termination of spousal support effective July 7, 2022, finding the applicant had failed to prove continued entitlement and had received sufficient support for fifteen years, noting her financial mismanagement and the lack of credible evidence regarding her PTSD impacting her ability to work.

The Applicant father sought to reduce longstanding s.7 expense arrears owed for his two adult children.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion to update and fix the arrears based on actual expenses, including post-secondary studies, and for costs.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding he had not diligently pursued variation in Canada despite being aware of his obligations.

The court granted the Respondent's cross-motion, fixing the s.7 arrears at $83,432.08 plus interest, and ordered payment of previously awarded costs with interest, all collectible as child support.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking $250,000 for interim disbursements and a $500,000 advance on an equalization payment.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing abuse of process and inability to pay, and objected to the wife's hearsay evidence regarding his asset values.

The court found no abuse of process, noting the husband's significant delay in providing financial disclosure.

The court awarded the wife $75,000 for interim disbursements and $50,000 as an advance on equalization, adjourning the remainder of the motion to allow the husband to provide outstanding disclosure, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn.