Leo P. Arseneau

The applicant brought a motion to increase temporary spousal support after the respondent's obligation to pay child support was terminated.

The respondent argued that the applicant's new relationship and cohabitation eliminated her need for support.

The court rejected this argument, finding a prima facie case for continued spousal support based on the lengthy traditional marriage and the applicant's ongoing need.

The court ordered the respondent to pay increased temporary spousal support of $1,503 per month.

Following a successful motion to change in which spousal support was terminated and the opposing claim for increased support was dismissed, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $20,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The opposing party argued that either no costs should be awarded or that costs should be limited to $5,000, emphasizing limited income.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing reasonable costs awards, the court took a global approach, considering the modest complexity of the case, the two‑day trial, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $10,000 inclusive of HST, with disbursements to be addressed separately if the parties could not reach agreement.

The moving party sought to terminate ongoing spousal support payable under a prior order following a long-term marriage.

Material changes included the termination of child support, increased income of the payor, reduced employment income of the recipient, and the recipient’s long‑term cohabitation with a new partner contributing significant household income.

Applying the Family Law Act and jurisprudence on compensatory and non‑compensatory support, the court found the recipient had been adequately compensated through equalization and ten years of support, and had achieved a reasonable standard of living in her new relationship.

The court concluded the economic consequences of the marriage had been equitably addressed.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate prospectively to allow the recipient time to adjust financially.

A surviving spouse brought a motion for an extension of time to file an election under s. 6(1) of the Family Law Act and sought directions regarding whether a pre‑retirement death benefit payable from a pension plan to the deceased spouse’s estate should be included in the deceased’s net family property.

The parties disputed whether the spouses were separated at the time of death, which would determine entitlement to the pension benefit.

The court held that a pre‑retirement death benefit payable to the estate is not an asset owned by the deceased on the valuation date and therefore cannot be included in the deceased’s net family property for equalization purposes.

The request for directions on including the benefit in the estate’s NFP was refused.

However, the court granted a 90‑day extension for the surviving spouse to file her election under the Family Law Act.