Allan M. Goldstein

Following a motion to change seeking termination or reduction of long‑term spousal support, the court addressed costs after the responding party successfully defended the support order.

Although the court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient’s failure to pursue employment, it declined to reduce support and noted the payor had been paying less than the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested.

The court held the responding party was the successful party and had beaten a prior settlement offer.

The court also considered the moving party’s incomplete financial disclosure and unreasonable settlement offers.

Full recovery costs were awarded to the responding party.

On a motion to change spousal support arising from a 26-year common law relationship, the moving party sought termination or reduction of indefinite support on the basis that the recipient had failed to make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency.

The court found a material change because the recipient admitted he was capable of work and had not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment, and it imputed income of $30,000 to him.

However, applying compensatory and non-compensatory support principles for a long traditional relationship, together with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court held the recipient remained entitled to indefinite support and that the existing monthly payment was already below the guideline range.

The motion succeeded only to the extent of the finding of material change and imputation of income, but no reduction, step-down, termination, or review was ordered.

On a family law motion and cross-motion, the court ordered the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home and denied the respondent's request for temporary exclusive possession.

Applying summary judgment principles and the prima facie right of a joint tenant to sale, the court held there was no triable issue supporting claims for permanent exclusive possession or a vesting order, and that immediate sale would not prejudice equalization claims because sale proceeds could be preserved.

The court also severed the divorce from corollary relief, fixed interim without prejudice spousal support at $3,208 per month, required continuation of insurance and beneficiary arrangements in favour of the respondent, and denied a non-depletion order under s. 40 of the Family Law Act.

Remaining relief was dismissed.

The father sought permission to travel outside Canada with the three children and to obtain their passports without the mother's consent.

The mother opposed the application, alleging the father intended to permanently remove the children to Somalia.

The court dismissed the mother's jurisdictional motion challenging whether the proceeding should have been commenced by motion to change rather than application.

On the merits, the court found that it was in the best interests of the children to permit travel with the father and to allow him to obtain passports without maternal consent, subject to specified conditions including notice requirements and a prohibition on travel to Somalia.