Joanne Beasley

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim access order, seeking reduced and supervised access for the applicant, citing an alleged sexual assault of a child by a neighbour and criminal charges laid against the applicant.

The applicant opposed the reduction and supervision, agreeing only to access at his mother's residence.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no basis to change the original order, and expressed skepticism regarding the respondent's allegations and the timing of the criminal charges.

The court found the applicant's report to CAS appropriate and maintained the original access schedule with minor modifications regarding exchange locations.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for child support for her three children from the applicant father, citing financial hardship due to COVID-19 related job loss.

The court found the matter urgent.

The mother requested support based on the father's historical income of $82,000, while the father argued for a lower income due to current employment restrictions and sought to delay payments to prioritize matrimonial home debts.

The court determined the father's annualized income for child support purposes to be $50,000, based on current earnings and future employment limitations, and ordered him to pay $977 monthly child support commencing May 1, 2020, prioritizing child support over matrimonial home debts.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking frequent overnight access to the parties' two-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and should await the completion of the Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court found that both parties were loving parents and that many of the mother's concerns were unwarranted or based on speculation.

The court granted the father interim overnight access every second weekend, finding that overnight visits were in the child's best interests and long overdue, pending the release of the report.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following the parties’ separation, along with related orders concerning health benefits and life insurance as security for support obligations.

The court determined the parties’ guideline incomes and rejected the respondent’s request to impute additional income to the applicant due to insufficient disclosure by the respondent and conflicting evidence regarding the applicant’s employment efforts.

Applying the principles governing effective notice from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court ordered set-off child support payable by the respondent effective June 1, 2015.

The court declined to make spousal support retroactive due to unresolved financial issues, including potential debts and outstanding equalization.

A temporary order was issued addressing child support, spousal support prospectively, special expenses, tax claims, insurance security, and benefits coverage.

On competing motions to vary an indefinite spousal support order, the court held the payor failed to establish a material change in circumstances warranting termination, where the recipient's disabling health conditions existed at the time of the original order and continued to preclude meaningful employment.

The court rejected the submission that the recipient had a duty to become self-sufficient and found the original order did not impose such an expectation.

The recipient, however, established a material change based on the termination of child support, inflation, and the payor's substantial income increase from approximately $79,000 to over $136,000.

Applying the Divorce Act variation framework and consulting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court increased support by $600 per month to $2,100, retroactive to September 1, 2013.

Following a family law motion, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

After reviewing the claims, the order granted, the parties’ submissions, and the respondent’s offer to settle, the court found that success on the motion was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principles governing costs in family proceedings, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own costs.