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.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The respondent suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and repeatedly refused to take medication, communicate with his lawyer, or attend court.

Despite a recent hospital discharge and a doctor's letter suggesting he was capable while medicated, the court found the respondent incapable of instructing counsel over the course of the proceeding.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

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.

The husband brought a motion under rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside a consent order resolving equalization issues on the basis of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the wife's net family property disclosure.

The court reviewed multiple challenged items, including the valuation of the matrimonial home, a condominium interest, alleged debts, vehicle valuation, omitted bank accounts, and household contents.

The court held that the husband failed to establish fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or lack of disclosure sufficient to set aside the consent order and had not exercised due diligence prior to entering the agreement.

The court also declined to exercise its discretionary authority under rule 59.06 due to delay and the husband's own incomplete disclosure.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the husband due to unproven allegations of fraud.

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.

The respondent brought a motion for a restraining order and an order requiring the applicant to vacate a residential property he owned, while the applicant brought a cross‑motion seeking interim spousal support based on an alleged common law relationship.

The parties disputed whether they had cohabited in a continuous common law relationship and whether the applicant had any possessory or constructive trust interest in the home.

The court found there was an arguable case that the parties were in a common law relationship but that significant factual disputes remained, including issues relating to income and property interests.

To preserve the status quo pending trial, the court allowed the applicant to remain in the home in lieu of interim spousal support and declined to grant a formal restraining order.

The matter was ordered to proceed to an expedited trial.