Lesley C. Kendall

The respondent husband brought a motion to change seeking to reduce and eventually terminate his spousal support obligations to the applicant wife.

He argued that his retirement, deteriorating health, the wife's remarriage, and her alleged self-sufficiency constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the husband's retirement was followed by similar employment, his health did not prevent him from working, and the wife's failure to find sustainable employment was reasonable given her long-standing mental health issues.

The court concluded that the husband failed to establish a material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion to change.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the production of marriage counselling records from the Family Services Assistance Program.

The applicant opposed the motion, asserting case-by-case privilege based on a confidentiality agreement signed by both parties.

Applying the Wigmore test, the court found that the communications originated in confidence, confidentiality was essential to the counselling relationship, and the relationship was one that should be fostered.

On the fourth branch of the test, the court concluded that the injury to the marriage counselling relationship and the applicant's privacy interests outweighed the respondent's interest in obtaining the records.

The motion for production was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties were unmarried and the respondent disputed that they were spouses, alleging a non-exclusive relationship.

The court applied the Moldowich criteria and found the applicant established a prima facie case of cohabitation since 2007.

The court also found a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement based on the applicant's needs and disability.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to the start of the year.

Following a successful family law motion for increased parenting time, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had been entirely successful and was found to have acted reasonably in seeking increased access through counsel.

The responding party was found to have behaved unreasonably by secretly recording the moving party and selectively presenting video evidence, resulting in an order requiring full production and transcription of the recordings at her expense.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The responding party was ordered to pay $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.