Jennifer Johnston

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal grandmother and the non-biological father figure both sought temporary custody and primary residence of the two young children.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the children's need for stability after multiple recent moves.

The court ordered that the children reside with the grandmother during the school week to facilitate online learning, and with the father figure on weekends.

No temporary order for legal custody was made, but the father figure was granted medical decision-making authority.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

Following a six-day trial, the court determined custody, access, and child support for two young children.

The mother sought sole custody and supervised access for the father, while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parents unable to communicate effectively due to the father's abusive behaviour and mental health struggles.

The father was granted access every second weekend, to be exercised under the flexible supervision of his parents or partner.

Additionally, the court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 for child support purposes.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to terminate spousal support following her retirement from the federal government.

The respondent, who had sacrificed his career to support the applicant's career and care for their child, argued against termination.

The court found a material change in circumstances upon the applicant reaching age 59.92.

Applying the rule against double recovery from Boston v. Boston, the court determined that an appropriate support order could be achieved without resorting to the unequalized portion of the applicant's pension.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, set at $2,086 per month until age 67, and $1,304 per month thereafter.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to enroll the parties' two children in a public community school, while the respondent father sought to keep the older child in a private Lebanese Catholic school and enroll the younger child there.

The court considered a court-appointed assessor's recommendation that a neutral community school would ease conflict and allow both parents to be equally involved.

Finding the private school tuition financially unrealistic for the parties and noting the long commute, the court granted the mother's motion and ordered the children to be enrolled in a community school.