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.

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.