Marcel R. Banasinski

The applicant sought summary judgment for spousal support.

The respondent, having recently retained counsel, requested an adjournment, which was denied due to concerns that a foreign divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent in Alabama was an attempt to circumvent the Ontario court's jurisdiction over corollary relief.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and granted spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, considering the applicant's health issues and financial hardship.

Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded, and the claim for corollary relief was severed from the divorce claim.

Costs were also awarded to the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion to implement recommendations of a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding custody and access arrangements.

The applicant mother disputed the recommendations and filed a cross-motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother was the successful party.

The mother sought costs of $2,726.05, while the father sought $9,715.00 or alternatively no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $2,900.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding the mother was the successful party on the primary issue and more successful on the secondary issue regarding summer access.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order made on November 13, 2012, seeking to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report dated June 19, 2013.

The father sought joint custody with expanded access.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, disputing factual findings in the report and arguing that joint custody was not workable given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation of the temporary order.

The court held that the Office of the Children's Lawyer report, while containing useful observations, did not provide an adequate basis for implementing joint custody or significantly expanded access at the interim stage, particularly given the parties' ongoing hostility and lack of meaningful communication.

Following a family law trial addressing unresolved corollary relief issues after separation, the court determined income for support purposes, spousal support entitlement, child support, access terms, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court held that a non‑taxable per diem employment allowance should be included as income for support calculations, though not grossed up for tax purposes, distinguishing cases where such allowances strictly offset additional family residence costs.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant spouse given her recent separation, caregiving responsibilities, and retraining plans.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered mid‑range spousal support and confirmed retroactive support calculations using actual income for the relevant year.

The matrimonial home was ordered listed for sale and access provisions were set for Christmas and professional activity days.