Jennifer Wall

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant father brought a motion to compel the respondent mother's father and boyfriend to attend for oral questioning as non-parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the strict criteria under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules, as questioning non-parties is a last resort and the information sought was either irrelevant or available from the respondent herself.

The respondent's father was, however, ordered to provide an affidavit regarding specific financial gifts and a vehicle transfer.

The applicant brought a motion to change long‑standing child and spousal support obligations arising from a 1997 divorce judgment.

The applicant sought termination of spousal support and reduction of child support for an adult dependent child with disabilities who continued to reside with the respondent.

The court held that the child remained a “child of the marriage” and applied s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, considering government disability benefits and program funding in assessing the child’s needs.

The court reduced the monthly child support obligation to reflect the child’s ODSP income and other subsidies.

The request to terminate or vary spousal support was dismissed because no material change justified altering the existing order.