Ken H. Nathens

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking reduction or termination of spousal support, termination or adjustment of child support for adult children pursuing post‑secondary education, and removal of a life insurance requirement securing support obligations.

The respondent cross‑moved for increased spousal support and arrears.

The court considered the Federal Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence governing support for adult children living away at university, finding that full table support may be inappropriate where parents are already contributing to living and education costs.

The court ordered modified child support reflecting different circumstances for each child and required a contribution from the adult child pursuing additional education.

Spousal support remained payable at $1,700 per month based on compensatory principles arising from childcare responsibilities and economic disadvantage, with income imputed to the respondent.

The payor was also ordered to obtain increased life insurance to secure support obligations and to pay arrears.

A costs endorsement following a motion for child support and orthodontic expenses.

The applicant sought costs of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle on December 14, 2011, which complied with all conditions under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's offer to settle was significantly less favourable than the final order.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days, taking into account the respondent's ability to pay and the tax deductibility of legal fees for support recipients.

The applicant sought temporary child support for the parties' 15-year-old daughter and the respondent's pro-rata share of orthodontic expenses.

The respondent sought to fix his income at a lower amount based on medical reasons and undue hardship, and requested a reduction in child support to $300 per month.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $71,321 based on his 2010 tax return, rejected the undue hardship claim, and ordered child support at the guideline table amount.

The court also found that orthodontic treatment constituted a special expense and ordered the respondent to pay his pro-rata share after insurance coverage.