J. R. Belleghem

Divorce trial addressing child support for an adult disabled child receiving ODSP benefits, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and post‑separation financial adjustments.

The payor argued that ODSP benefits should eliminate or reduce child support and proposed contributing to an RDSP instead.

The court rejected that position, holding that ODSP benefits do not displace the presumptive child support obligation under the Federal Child Support Guidelines for a disabled adult child who remains a “child of the marriage.” The court imputed part‑time income to the caregiving spouse and fixed mid‑range spousal support after considering the child support obligation and the parties’ respective incomes.

Equalization and multiple post‑separation adjustments were determined, including reimbursement relating to a breach‑of‑trust judgment, company‑paid personal expenses, and other financial adjustments.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order turning selected provisions of the respondent’s offer to settle into a court order after purporting to accept only the portions relating to property issues.

The respondent argued that the offer was a global offer and that partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer rather than a valid acceptance.

The court held that Rule 18(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules does not alter the common law principle that acceptance of an offer must be unconditional and complete.

Because the applicant attempted to accept only portions of the offer without evidence of severability, there was no valid acceptance and therefore no enforceable settlement.

The motion for judgment enforcing the purported acceptance was dismissed.