Jennifer Treloar

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligation for two adult children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for recalculation of child support from May 2015 onwards.

The court terminated the father's obligation for both children effective December 31, 2016, finding that both had ceased to qualify as children of the marriage under the applicable statutory definitions.

The court granted the mother's claim for recalculation of support for the period prior to termination, finding she had standing to pursue the claim as it was originally pleaded when both children were entitled to support.

A motion brought by the mother seeking exclusive decision-making authority regarding ADHD treatment for the parties' thirteen-year-old son, including the right to consent to medication and to choose treatment providers.

The father opposed the motion, arguing for a collaborative approach and non-medication alternatives.

The court found that medication is the most effective treatment modality for ADHD based on expert evidence from the child's psychologist and pediatrician.

The court granted the mother exclusive decision-making authority regarding ADHD treatment and prohibited the father from discussing medication with the child or attempting to dissuade him from its use, finding that the father had engaged in manipulative conduct and was not open to evidence-based treatment.

Following prior proceedings in a family law matter, the court addressed costs entitlement and quantum.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $15,325.19 supported only by counsel’s ledger statement.

The court noted that the request included preparation for attendance at a case conference despite no costs order having been made at that conference.

In the circumstances, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered a lump-sum costs award.

A former spouse brought a motion to change a final divorce order seeking to reduce or eliminate spousal support following retirement and serious health issues.

The court found that retirement and deteriorating health constituted a material change in circumstances.

In assessing support, the court considered whether pension income previously equalized at property division could still be relied upon for spousal support and reviewed authorities on “double‑dipping.” The court concluded that the recipient had received appropriate equalization and owned significant assets, and therefore support should not continue indefinitely based on the pension income.

The support obligation was gradually reduced over several months and terminated as of March 1, 2015.