Jill Kathleen Addison

This costs endorsement addresses a motion regarding parenting time and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found that success on the motion was divided: parenting time was reinstated, but the OCL was not appointed.

The court also addressed outstanding child support and ordered immediate payment to the Applicant.

Given the divided success and the circumstances, no costs were awarded.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding parenting time between Kristen McElroy (mother) and Ryan Andrew Spence (father) for their six-year-old child, Bryson McElroy.

The court reviews the parties’ parenting history, the mother’s unilateral changes to the father’s access, and allegations of substance abuse.

The court finds no evidence to justify supervised parenting time for the father and restores his regular access, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the need for cooperative co-parenting.

The court also orders the father to pay outstanding child support directly to the mother and provides directions for resolving costs.

This two-day focused trial addressed financial issues between common-law ex-spouses, including the valuation and division of the jointly owned family home, repayment of mortgage interest, determination of each party's income for support purposes, and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court upheld a prior consent order regarding the property's valuation formula but awarded the applicant pre- and post-judgment interest due to the respondent's delay in payout.

The court imputed income to the applicant for her dog-breeding business for one year but declined to impute income to the respondent for his farm work.

Child and spousal support were determined based on the parties' incomes, with spousal support being compensatory and subject to review.

The respondent's claim for mortgage interest repayment and the right of first refusal were dismissed.

The father brought a motion to terminate child support for his 19-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed and sought a retroactive increase in child support and arrears, arguing the father failed to disclose income increases.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court found the father's failure to disclose income constituted blameworthy conduct and ordered retroactive child support to March 2018, three years prior to formal notice.

The court declined to credit the father for discretionary payments made outside of child support.

Ongoing child support was ordered to continue as the child was enrolled in university.

On an interim mobility motion, the moving party sought permission to relocate with three children to Perth to live with her mother.

The court held that where custody and access remained genuinely in issue for trial, it should be reluctant to disrupt the existing parallel-parenting status quo.

Applying the best-interests framework from Gordon v. Goertz, the court found the proposed move would significantly disrupt the children's schooling, daycare, friendships, and community stability at a time of parental breakup.

The motion was denied, and no costs were ordered.

The court determined costs following a family law motion where success was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event but considering the mixed outcome, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own legal costs of the motion.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking multiple forms of relief relating to child support, section 7 expenses for a child attending university, spousal support arrears, and life insurance security for support obligations.

The court declined to order an ongoing reduced guideline payment during the academic year but required the respondent to pay the full guideline amount during summer months and two additional months while the child returned home.

The request to increase the respondent’s proportionate share of section 7 expenses from 60% to 70% was denied due to insufficient evidence and the voluntary nature of the applicant’s proposed income reduction.

The court also established accounting principles for determining any spousal support arrears and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance coverage to secure support obligations.