Judy Overgaard

The court issued supplementary reasons to its trial decision, addressing unresolved calculations for spousal support and costs.

The applicant sought to reduce spousal support based on changes in child care arrangements and the respondent's increased investment income, arguing for a re-evaluation of Net Disposable Income (NDI).

The court clarified that NDI calculations are a tool, not a fixed target, and that the goal is roughly equivalent living standards.

Spousal support was fixed at $1,400 per month, a figure at the lower end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the change in parenting.

The court also provided directions for finalizing the judgment and resolving costs.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking permission to amend her application to include claims for constructive trust, intentional infliction of mental suffering and distress, and a restraining order against disseminating compromising videos/photographs.

She also sought an appraisal of an Australian property and further financial disclosure.

The Respondent opposed the motion, arguing delay, bad faith, and lack of merit for the new claims.

The court partially granted the motion, allowing the amendments, vacating the trial date, permitting the appraisal, and ordering specific financial disclosure, including intimate images and personal effects valuation.

The court found the proposed amendments tenable and necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings, despite the Applicant's delay.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for interim access to the parties' two-year-old child.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the matter was not urgent, citing the father's prior inaction, the absence of a case conference, his incarceration history, and criminal convictions for domestic violence against the respondent in the child's presence.

The court also criticized both parties for filing excessive material for an administrative urgency request, exceeding the specified page limits.

The request for an urgent motion was dismissed.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement to resolve parenting and child support issues through mediation/arbitration.

The respondent subsequently refused to pay the arbitration retainer or attend mandatory domestic violence and power imbalance screening, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to proceed.

The court granted the motion, finding the respondent was bound by the Minutes of Settlement to take the necessary steps to implement the agreement, including attending the required screening.

The respondent father brought a successful motion to change, resulting in a reduction and termination of spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant mother, and orders for child support.

The father sought costs of the motion.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother's positions were unreasonable.

The mother also failed to make an offer to settle, whereas the father made a reasonable offer.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $15,000 to the father.

The father brought a motion to change a 2007 consent order, seeking to terminate spousal support and vary child support after both children moved to his primary care.

The mother opposed the termination of spousal support, citing health issues and an inability to find full-time work, and sought retroactive child support based on the father's significantly increased income.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support and reimburse the father for overpayments.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support for 2015-2016, and ordered that spousal support step down and terminate in April 2019, finding the mother had been compensated for the economic disadvantages of the marriage.

Following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $65,000 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the applicant's counsel's hourly rate of $475 was excessive and should be capped at $350.

The court found the higher rate was justified due to counsel's special expertise as a certified specialist in family law.

However, considering the applicant's mixed success on some issues and redundant preparation time, the court fixed costs at $50,000 payable by the respondent.

Supplementary reasons in a family law matter addressing transportation obligations for access exchanges and clarification of an interim access schedule pending the potential implementation of a shared parenting regime.

The court agreed with the respondent’s interpretation of the earlier reasons and declined to convert the respondent’s willingness to assist with transportation into a binding obligation.

The court confirmed the interim access arrangements and encouraged the parties to develop a shared parenting schedule during the final month of the six‑month interim period.

If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the court indicated that a case conference could be scheduled.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for interim custody and access of their three children.

The mother also sought child and spousal support, and to add the children's school board as a party.

The court awarded sole interim custody to the father due to the mother's recent violent conduct, anger issues, and alcohol abuse.

The mother was granted specified access subject to a strict condition prohibiting alcohol consumption.

The mother was awarded $800 per month in interim spousal support, but denied child support.

The motion to add the school board as a party was dismissed, as the board acted appropriately in maintaining the status quo for the children's transportation amidst the parents' access dispute.