Lauren C. Bale

The applicant wife sought a divorce and ongoing spousal support, while the respondent husband sought to terminate spousal support and child support for their two adult children.

The court found that the wife had been fully compensated for economic disadvantages arising from the marriage and had made no conscientious effort to become self-sufficient despite receiving support for over 20 years.

Spousal support was terminated.

Child support for the older child was terminated retroactively to the completion of her undergraduate degree, while child support for the younger child was reinstated to allow him to complete his college studies.

The court declined to order a retroactive repayment of child support to the husband to avoid undue hardship.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving spousal support and equalization of net family property.

Despite multiple court orders, extensions, and escalating daily penalties, the respondent had only selectively provided disclosure, deliberately withholding information deemed relevant.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance willful and egregious, noting that basic financial disclosure required by the Family Law Rules remained outstanding over two years into the litigation.

While acknowledging the severity of striking pleadings, the court granted the respondent one final, time-limited opportunity to comply with a detailed list of disclosure requirements and pay outstanding costs, failing which his answer would be struck without further argument.

The court also ordered that any unproduced documents related to excluded property, date of marriage assets, or valuation date debts could not be used at trial.

The applicant father brought a motion for a Christmas holiday access schedule for the parties' 10-year-old child.

The self-represented respondent mother requested an adjournment to retain counsel and asked that her partner be permitted to act as her agent.

The court denied both preliminary requests, noting the time-sensitive nature of the motion, the mother's failure to respond to prior communications, and the partner's inappropriate conduct and potential role as a witness.

On the substantive issue, the court found that the father's proposed schedule, which provided an approximately equal division of holiday time and allowed the child to spend Christmas Eve and morning with the father for the first time since separation, was in the child's best interests.

The motion was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion to permit day-to-day parenting decisions, including enrolling the child in after-school care, without the respondent mother's consent.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking a right of first refusal, final decision-making, counselling for the child, a change in access exchange location, updated child support, and other procedural relief.

The court granted the father's request regarding day-to-day decisions and after-school care, finding it a practical solution given his criminal release conditions preventing contact with the mother.

The court dismissed the mother's requests for a right of first refusal, final decision-making, counselling, and changing the exchange location, citing the high-conflict nature of the case and lack of material change.

The court ordered updated child support based on the father's projected income and deferred questioning until after his criminal trial.

The mother brought an uncontested motion to change a 2012 final order regarding child support.

The father had failed to disclose his increased income since obtaining full-time employment in 2013 and refused to contribute to section 7 expenses.

The court imputed income to the father due to his failure to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered retroactive child support of $41,777 dating back to January 1, 2013, increased prospective child support, and ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the children's section 7 expenses.

The moving party (respondent in the main action) brought a motion to set aside a final order for spousal support obtained in his absence at an uncontested trial.

He argued he was unaware of the proceedings and disputed the trial judge's findings regarding the length of cohabitation and his imputed income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party deliberately evaded service and ignored the court process to avoid paying spousal support.

The court also found no arguable case on the merits, as the evidence supported a 21-year spousal relationship and the imputed income was appropriate based on his past earnings.

The respondent father brought a motion to enroll the parties' four-year-old child in a public school in Dundas, Ontario, while the applicant mother brought a cross-motion to enroll the child in Jarvis, Ontario.

The parties shared equal parenting time under a temporary order, but lived an hour apart.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, focusing on stability and the child's status quo.

Finding that the child's ordinary residence had historically been Dundas and that the father's plan offered more stability with fewer unsettling features, the court granted the father's motion and ordered the child enrolled in Dundas.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to disclose, and sought orders restricting his access and communication.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking unsupervised and expanded access to their 15-month-old child.

The court dismissed the motion to strike as disclosure was largely provided.

The court ordered ongoing drug testing for the father, moved access exchanges to a neutral location with strict non-contact rules, and restricted communication between the parties to a journal.

The court granted the father expanded access on a graduated schedule, but ordered that his overnight access remain supervised by paternal family members due to concerns regarding past drug use.