Loreen Irvine

The father brought a motion to change seeking to vary previous orders regarding the primary residence of one of the children, child support, and spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances, determining that the child's primary residence had shifted to the father.

Consequently, child and spousal support were varied.

The court also imputed income to the father based on a three-year average after finding his divestiture of a corporation to his son was not at arm's length.

The father's claim for occupation rent was dismissed, but he was credited for his contributions to the matrimonial home's expenses pending its sale.

Following a five-day trial on parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis for all steps, including issues settled just prior to trial.

The court held that costs could be awarded for the settled issues because the applicant was clearly successful on primary residence and decision-making.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not trigger full indemnity costs because they contained terms the court could not order, the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with disclosure orders, justified an elevated partial recovery costs award of 70%.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion regarding the sale of matrimonial property.

The applicant was the successful party, having dismissed the respondent's motion and secured an order for the transfer of the Gallagher Road property to her for $275,000.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs, including full recovery costs after her offer to settle was served, as the result achieved was the same as her offer.

The court fixed the all-inclusive costs at $4,500, to be deducted from the respondent's share of the property proceeds.

Robert Shouldice moved for orders granting him sole authority to list and sell two properties, the matrimonial home at McCordick Road and another property at Gallagher Road, seeking to enforce a 2016 order.

Lisa Shouldice opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion, requesting the Gallagher Road property be transferred to her for $275,000 or, alternatively, that she have sole authority to sell it.

The court dismissed Robert Shouldice's motion in its entirety.

For the McCordick Road property, the court noted that a vesting order application was already underway as per a 2019 consent order, which superseded the 2016 order's disposition mechanism.

For the Gallagher Road property, the court granted Lisa Shouldice's cross-motion, ordering the property transferred to her for $275,000, finding this would maximize recovery for creditors and avoid further delays given the parties' history of non-cooperation.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to reduce his spousal support obligations due to a material change in circumstances following his involuntary retirement and subsequent re-employment at a lower salary.

The respondent conceded the material change, leaving only the quantum and duration of support in issue.

The court varied the spousal support to $3,000 per month for an indefinite period, effective January 1, 2019, finding this amount appropriately reflected the parties' original separation agreement which set support near the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from motions brought by both the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The father was awarded 70% of his costs, fixed at $8,690, primarily due to the mother's unsuccessful and ill-advised pursuit of retroactive child support by motion and her late consent to add the father's name to birth certificates.

The court found the father was the successful party on the undue hardship issue and declaration of parentage, while the mother succeeded on the name change issue.

Costs for a contested adjournment were declined for the father.

The applicant father sought child support below Guidelines due to undue hardship, access to information, a declaration of parentage, a name change for the children, and a restriction on the respondent mother relocating the children.

The respondent mother sought child support and retroactive child support.

The court granted the declaration of parentage and access to information.

It found the father met the undue hardship test due to unusually high access costs, reducing his child support obligation.

The request for a name change was deferred to trial due to premature relationship development and factual disputes.

The relocation restriction was addressed by undertakings from the mother to provide notice and consent to continued jurisdiction.

The issue of retroactive child support was also deferred to trial.

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding child and spousal support due to changes in children's residential arrangements.

The respondent denied one child was a child of the marriage and sought to increase spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, terminated the applicant's child support obligation, and ordered the respondent to pay child support for certain periods.

The court also ordered reimbursement of overpaid child support by the applicant.

The spousal support entitlement was found to be both needs-based and compensatory, with specific calculations deferred.

This decision addresses costs in a long-standing family law dispute involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent's motion to change custody and access was dismissed by consent, and support issues were resolved after the respondent provided complete financial disclosure, which had been significantly delayed.

The applicant was substantially successful on custody and access, and the final agreement largely mirrored the applicant's settlement offers.

The court found the respondent caused delays, particularly in financial disclosure, and awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, including GST/HST and disbursements.

The respondent father moved for joint custody, increased parenting time, a relocation restriction, a custody/access assessment, and child support.

The applicant mother cross-moved for sole custody, reduced parenting time, permission to relocate, and child support.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered an update to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report instead of a full assessment, set child support payable by the father based on his 2015 income, and restricted the mother from relocating the child beyond a 15 km radius from her current residence without a further court order.

The parties settled custody, access, and child support arrears.

The remaining issues were the quantum of ongoing child support and costs.

The applicant father sought a suspension of ongoing child support and enforcement of future arrears, arguing undue hardship under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines due to a stroke, depression, alcoholism, and a claw-back of disability payments.

The respondent mother resisted this application.

The court found that the father had demonstrated "exceptional and unusual" circumstances constituting undue hardship.

Consequently, the payment of the table amount of child support and the enforcement of any future arrears were suspended until the father's financial circumstances improved, with only the agreed-upon arrears payment continuing.

No costs were awarded as both parties achieved partial success.

The applicant brought a procedural motion seeking removal of the respondent’s counsel on the basis of alleged conflict of interest after the lawyer attended the matrimonial home during enforcement of a prior access order and had a brief interaction with the applicant.

The court held that the respondent was entitled under the earlier order to attend the home with third parties, including legal counsel.

The interaction occurred because the applicant deliberately attended the property despite a court order directing her not to be present.

The evidence did not establish that counsel had become a material witness or that any prejudice would arise.

Given the high threshold required to remove counsel of choice, the motion was dismissed.

Following a family law trial in which custody of two children was varied in favour of the applicant, the court addressed costs.

The successful applicant sought over $23,000 in costs, including full indemnity from the date of a written settlement offer under the Family Law Rules.

While the court acknowledged the presumption that costs follow the event and the enhanced costs consequences of an offer to settle, it found that both parties contributed significantly to the conflict leading to the litigation.

Taking into account the respondent’s limited financial means and the impact of a costs order on her ability to pay child support, the court exercised its discretion to significantly reduce the costs award.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior joint custody order to obtain sole custody and child support.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and whether the proposed variation was in the best interests of the children.

Evidence addressed school attendance, hygiene concerns, medical care, and parental communication failures while the children resided primarily with the respondent mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and concluded that the children’s educational, medical, and developmental needs were being better met while residing with the father.

Sole custody was granted to the father with liberal access to the mother, and income was imputed to the mother for child support purposes.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's (former wife) application to set aside their separation agreement and claim spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The responding party alleged she signed the agreement under duress, without proper financial disclosure, and without independent legal advice.

The court applied the "full appreciation test" for summary judgment and the Miglin two-stage test for setting aside domestic contracts.

The court found no evidence of duress, noted the responding party had counsel but chose to sign without them, and concluded the agreement substantially complied with the Divorce Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application was dismissed.