J.P. Paciocco

The applicant sought an interim and final order to terminate spousal support due to retirement and reduced income.

The respondent conceded a reduction but opposed termination, proposing a higher interim amount.

The court found the applicant's retirement reasonable and a material change in circumstances, warranting a variation.

Applying the "double dipping" principle from *Boston v. Boston* to calculate the applicant's income and considering the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered interim spousal support of $600 per month, effective May 1, 2017, to terminate on December 31, 2018, when the respondent would be eligible for Old Age Security benefits.

The applicant's contribution to the respondent's health care plan was also adjusted.

The Mother sought to relocate with the children from Sault Ste.

Marie to Windsor for a full-time teaching position, which the Father opposed.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test, finding a material change in circumstances due to the expiration of the Mother's leave of absence.

The court assessed the best interests of the children, weighing the benefits of remaining in Sault Ste.

Marie (strong family bonds, community) against the benefits of moving to Windsor (financial stability, Mother's strong parenting, existing support network, Father's flexible access plan).

The court found the Mother's testimony more credible and concluded that the financial benefits and the Mother's strong parenting skills, coupled with a viable parenting plan, outweighed the disruption of the move.

Leave to relocate was granted.

The parties separated in 2013 and have two children.

The mother sought an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act to evaluate the father's parenting abilities, citing concerns about his mental health and alleged drug use, and opposed his request for overnight access.

The father opposed the assessment and sought increased, overnight access on a step-up basis.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a section 30 assessment, finding it prohibitively expensive and unnecessary given the existing professional evidence from the Children's Aid Society and the father's treating psychiatrist, both of whom indicated no safety concerns.

The court requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and granted the father interim overnight access, finding it to be in the children's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion to sever a joint tenancy in a matrimonial home following separation and settlement of family law proceedings, and sought discharge of a creditor’s writ of execution registered against the property.

The court considered whether the parties’ conduct during matrimonial litigation constituted a course of dealing sufficient to sever the joint tenancy under the principles set out in Hansen Estate.

The court held that the parties’ actions demonstrated a mutual intention to treat their interests as tenants in common, thereby severing the joint tenancy.

Exercising equitable jurisdiction, the court further ordered that the creditor’s writ be discharged upon payment of $37,000 into court pending determination of entitlement among potential creditors.

The court found insufficient evidence that the creditor would be prejudiced by such an order.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final joint custody order, seeking shared custody of the parties' child on a week-about basis and a corresponding adjustment to child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties forming new blended families and the child's increased behavioural issues.

However, the court dismissed the father's claim for shared custody, finding that the parents' high conflict, inability to communicate, and differing parenting styles made shared or joint custody unworkable and contrary to the child's best interests.

The court varied the existing order to grant sole custody to the respondent mother, reduced the father's access to alternate weekends to minimize transitions, and ordered the father to pay $660.79 per month in child support.