Jonathan Stankiewicz

The respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss the applicant's spousal support claim on the basis that she did not meet the definition of "spouse" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion for interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's adjournment request, finding she had ample time to secure counsel.

Applying the Hryniak v. Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the threshold question of whether the applicant was a spouse.

Based on extensive objective evidence, including the parties' statutory declaration for immigration purposes, tax returns, driver's licenses, and third-party affidavits, the court found that the parties did not cohabit continuously for three years and did not otherwise meet the definition of "spouse" as interpreted by the Molodowich v. Penttinen factors.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was granted, and the applicant's claims were dismissed.

The applicant father sought to retroactively decrease his child support obligation and reduce arrears from a 2014 consent order, citing a material change in circumstances due to a significant decrease in his income.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances, acknowledging the father's difficulties in obtaining financial disclosure due to his former employer's legal issues and his self-represented status.

Despite a lack of effective notice, the court exercised its discretion to vary child support and section 7 expenses retroactively to July 1, 2018, applying the Colucci framework.

The court recalculated child support based on imputed and actual incomes, adjusted section 7 expenses, and reduced the outstanding arrears.

The respondent father brought a motion to have the parties' 11-year-old daughter attend a French immersion school, while the applicant mother wanted her to attend a homogeneous French-language school.

The parties shared parenting time equally.

The court considered the best interests of the child, weighing factors such as the benefits of French-only instruction, the child's attachments to friends, the father's ability to participate in her education, and the status quo.

The court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to attend the homogeneous French-language school, as it represented the status quo and offered the benefits of full French instruction, despite the father's concerns about his ability to participate in her education.

The father's motion was dismissed.

Following a bifurcated motion where the applicant husband successfully obtained a stay of temporary support orders and the release of trust funds, he sought full indemnity costs of $17,986.37.

The respondent wife argued against a costs award due to her limited financial means.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including reasonableness, proportionality, and the wife's ability to pay.

The court ordered the respondent wife to pay costs fixed at $11,500, payable in any event of the cause.

The applicant husband, an airline pilot, brought a motion to vary or stay temporary child and spousal support orders and to release funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The husband had lost his employment due to a voluntary leave of absence for immigration purposes, followed by pandemic-related layoffs and the onset of tinnitus.

The court found that the husband met the test for an interim variation, as he currently had no income and was not intentionally underemployed given the pandemic and his medical condition.

The court suspended the husband's support obligations on an interim basis and ordered the release of $35,000 to each party from the matrimonial home proceeds.

Following a family law trial with divided success, the applicant husband sought full indemnity costs of over $100,000, relying on pre-trial offers to settle.

The respondent wife sought no costs, arguing success was divided and citing her modest financial means.

The court found that while the husband's offers did not strictly comply with Rule 18(14), his pre-trial conduct was more resolution-oriented than the wife's.

Taking into account the divided success, the wife's unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement, and her limited ability to pay, the court ordered the wife to pay costs fixed at $12,000.

Following an 11-year marriage, the parties proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of equalization, spousal support, and claims regarding the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's claim for a constructive trust interest in the post-separation increase in the home's value, finding the increase was market-driven and the husband had paid the carrying costs.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was also dismissed.

For equalization, a loan from the husband's father was discounted to 5% of its face value due to the low probability of enforcement.

The wife was found entitled to compensatory spousal support, but the quantum was set at zero due to the priority of the husband's child support obligations.

The court issued a second supplementary judgment addressing the applicant's request for a spousal rollover of an RRSP and the question of costs.

The court dismissed the spousal rollover request, finding it had been substantially complied with through payments into a joint account for shared expenses.

On costs, the respondent was deemed to have prevailed overall, having beaten his offers to settle.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs throughout and substantial indemnity costs from the date of his offer, with adjustments for the applicant's successful defense of a misconceived breach of fiduciary duty claim and shared costs for an expert income report.