L. Paterson-Kelly

Following a review clause in earlier minutes of settlement, the payor spouse brought a motion to change seeking a reduction, step-down, and eventual termination of spousal support.

The recipient spouse sought an increase, cost-of-living indexing, reinstatement of benefits, and other relief.

The court conducted a full review of entitlement, quantum, and duration under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

It found the recipient spouse had a strong non-compensatory entitlement and that self‑sufficiency was not realistically achievable within a reasonable time given her education, employment history, and economic circumstances following the marriage breakdown.

The court increased support to the SSAG mid‑range, ordered cost‑of‑living adjustments, declined to impose a termination date or further review, and imposed disclosure and insurance proof requirements.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that four children were in need of protection due to the mother's continued relationship with a man who had sexually assaulted one of the children's friends and was alleged to have abused one of the children.

The mother provided sworn evidence that she had ended the relationship and had not exposed the children to the man for over a year.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the mother's intentions and actions raised a genuine issue of credibility that could only be resolved at trial.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s maternal aunt brought a motion seeking to be added as a party and requesting the appointment of legal counsel for the child pursuant to s. 38 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the aunt was not a necessary party under the Family Law Rules and that her proposed parenting plan could be advanced through the mother without granting her party status.

The court emphasized that adding additional parties may cause unnecessary delay and is not generally contemplated under s. 39 of the Act.

However, the court found that legal representation for the child was desirable given the presence of competing parenting plans and the importance of ensuring that the child’s views and interests were adequately presented.

The motion to add the aunt as a party was dismissed, but the request for legal representation for the child was granted.

In a family law motion concerning a child’s schooling, the moving party sought a temporary order requiring the child to return to her former elementary school after the other parent unilaterally enrolled her in a new school following a residential move.

The court considered the child’s best interests, the parties’ joint custody arrangement, and the procedural history of negotiations and delays.

The evidence showed the responding parent had repeatedly raised the issue, proposed mediation, and acted due to a medical condition affecting her ability to drive long distances, while the moving party delayed initiating court proceedings.

Given the child had already been attending the new school for several weeks and further disruption was likely if she were transferred back on a temporary basis, the court declined to disturb the status quo.

The motion was dismissed and the child was permitted to remain at the new school pending further proceedings.