Rod Vanier

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance, and health benefits following a 16-year marriage where she was the primary caregiver.

The respondent argued his new financial commitments to his fiancée should lessen his support obligations and that the applicant should be self-sufficient.

The court rejected the respondent's argument regarding new financial commitments but imputed a minimum wage income of $26,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $400 per month in interim spousal support, maintain $350,000 in life insurance, and reinstate the applicant on his extended health benefits plan.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for breaching a previous order regarding his access to their two children.

The court found that the mother had systematically frustrated the father's access, delayed a court-ordered custody assessment, and inappropriately delegated the decision to attend access visits to their seven-year-old child.

Applying the principles from Godard v. Godard, the court held that a parent must take concrete measures to apply normal parental authority to ensure compliance with an access order.

The court found the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, but adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt and to obtain updated reports from the Children's Aid Society.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim family law order granting retrospective and ongoing spousal support and dismissing his request for child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court applied the leave test under Rule 62.02(4) and held there was no conflicting authority based on different legal principles, no serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance warranting appellate intervention.

The matters were important to the litigants privately but did not engage the development of the law or the administration of justice.

Leave to appeal was dismissed.

On competing family law motions, the court held that a 23-year-old adult child pursuing expensive studies in the United States was not a child of the marriage for purposes of support under the Divorce Act.

Interim spousal support entitlement was uncontested, but the dispute concerned income imputation and quantum.

The court imputed income of $15,000 to the applicant spouse and $157,000 to the respondent spouse, rejected the respondent's position that he could not work on the evidence filed, and ordered retroactive interim spousal support of $6,800 per month from June 1, 2014 with credits for specified payments.

Ongoing interim spousal support of $5,500 per month was ordered effective January 1, 2015, together with reimbursement of life insurance premiums and payment of arrears from trust funds.

Following a family law motion concerning custody and access issues, the successful moving party sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The motion resulted in an updated custody and access assessment, a variation of the weekend parenting schedule, and counselling arrangements for the child, although a request for joint custody was refused.

The responding party argued there was no jurisdiction to award costs and that success on the motion was divided, emphasizing good‑faith litigation and limited financial resources.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to determine costs and found the moving party was largely successful.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within six months.