Mark S. LaFrance

The applicant sought to vary child support and reduce arrears, claiming a material change in circumstances and undue hardship.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-application for financial disclosure, variation of child support, and reimbursement for Section 7 expenses.

The court found the applicant intentionally unemployed/underemployed, had access to significant income, and failed to provide full financial disclosure despite multiple orders.

The applicant's claims were dismissed.

The court imputed income to the applicant, ordered her to pay substantial child support arrears and ongoing support, and to secure health benefits and life insurance for the child.

This case involved a 21-year common-law relationship with two adult children, addressing claims for pension equalization, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and property accounting.

The court determined the separation date was December 9, 2016, which rendered the applicant's claim for unjust enrichment regarding pension equalization statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicant was awarded child support arrears and spousal support, with spousal support fixed at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range for a limited duration.

The respondent's claims for adjustments related to jointly held properties were largely accepted, while the applicant's claims for certain operating expenses were denied.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a trial where the Respondent was the successful party on the main issues.

Both parties filed written costs submissions.

The court considered the reasonableness of the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the income determination issue, and the financial positions of the parties.

The Respondent sought $46,000 in costs, including legal and accounting fees.

The Applicant argued for lower costs due to her financial situation and care of children with exceptional needs.

Applying the Family Law Rules and principles from relevant case law, the court fixed costs at $26,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to distribute net sale proceeds from two jointly owned properties held in trust, which the applicant did not oppose.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking the sale of a third jointly held property and a preservation order to hold the net proceeds in trust to secure her claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the third property and the release of the trust funds.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests for preservation orders, finding she failed to establish irreparable harm for the support claim and failed to meet the test for a Mareva injunction regarding the unjust enrichment claim.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole decision-making authority over the education plan of the couple's 14-year-old daughter, Gracie, and to enroll her in Napanee District Secondary School (NDSS).

The mother opposed, preferring Gracie remain at Frontenac Secondary School (FSS) in Kingston, citing Gracie's academic success there, transportation issues, and concerns about the father's home environment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parents' severe inability to cooperate on educational decisions.

Considering Gracie's expressed preference for NDSS, supported by a Voice of the Child report, and finding the mother's objections insufficient, the court granted the father's motion.

The order was varied to give the father final decision-making authority for education, permit Gracie's enrollment in NDSS, and assign the mother responsibility for transportation on her weeks.

The child's residency schedule was also clarified.

The applicant husband brought motions to find the respondent wife in contempt for failing to provide timely disclosure, and for various other relief including the sale or winding up of their jointly owned companies and former matrimonial home, an advance on legal fees, and an extension of the limitation period to seek equalization.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the wife's delay was not wilful or deliberate.

The court declined to order the sale of the companies or the home given the existence of separation agreements that dealt with those assets, but granted preservation orders restraining the wife from encroaching on corporate funds or the home's equity.

The request for an advance on legal fees was dismissed, and the limitation period extension was adjourned to trial.

The Applicant (Father) brought a motion seeking a parenting plan and an order for the Respondent (Mother) to return their three-year-old child to Frontenac County following the Mother's relocation.

The parties reached consent terms on supervised parenting, alcohol abstinence during parenting time, and a prohibition on driving with the child.

Disputed issues included the pre-parenting alcohol abstinence period, the child's residence, and the specific parenting schedule.

The court ordered a 48-hour pre-parenting alcohol abstinence period and dismissed the motion to return the child to Frontenac County, instead ordering that the Mother not relocate the child more than 50 kilometers from the Father's residence without prior agreement or court order.

A specific interim parenting schedule was established, including alternating Saturday and Sunday visits, with provisions for communication via Our Family Wizard and a non-denigration clause.

The Applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation, while the Respondent requested its continuation and increase.

The court treated the matter as an originating application under the Divorce Act, upholding the parties' separation agreement as valid and enforceable.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments that post-separation income increases and the Respondent's repartnering should negate his support obligation.

It emphasized the strong compensatory nature of support in a long-term marriage, the Respondent's contributions to the Applicant's career, and the need to consider post-separation income, including a portion of a pension lump sum payout, applying principles from Boston and Halliwell.

The court ordered spousal support to continue at an increased amount and included a provision for life insurance.

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.

The applicant mother sought to vary a 2010 custody order for her son, AJ, who has moderately severe autism, requesting a week on/week off parenting schedule and a variation of child support.

She also sought determination of post-secondary costs for her daughter, Jessie.

The respondent father sought a variation of custody for AJ to 24/28 days with him, retroactive and ongoing child support, and an order appointing him as guardian of AJ's property.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to Jessie's departure for university.

The court ordered a week on/week off schedule for AJ, with the mother responsible for driving him to school to avoid long bus rides.

The mother was ordered to pay $7,193.14 in retroactive child support to the father and $500 per month directly to Jessie for her post-secondary education.

The father was appointed guardian of AJ's property, with a directive to share ODSP payments equally with the mother.

The parties submitted Minutes of Settlement seeking a Consent Order that included terms for secondary arbitration (parenting coordination) for future disputes.

The court raised several questions regarding whether the proposed terms complied with the mandatory requirements for secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act, 1991, such as the qualifications of the arbitrator and the delegation of choosing the arbitrator.

The court deferred granting the consent order pending further submissions or redrafted Minutes from counsel.

Following a lengthy family law trial after the parties’ separation, the court addressed divorce, custody and access, child and spousal support (including retroactive amounts), equalization of net family property, section 7 expenses, life insurance security for support, and various adjustment claims.

Joint custody with primary residence to the mother was ordered along with structured access.

The court determined the parties’ net family property and ordered a pension division at source rather than through equalization.

Retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support were fixed based on imputed and actual incomes, and the father was ordered to contribute to section 7 expenses.

Claims for occupation rent and reimbursement of certain expenses were dismissed, and improperly obtained private emails were ordered removed from the record.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time with his young child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continued supervised access for the father.

The court considered allegations of past domestic violence, the child’s young age, the status quo of supervised access, and recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court found that while concerns regarding anger issues existed, the strict supervision regime was overly restrictive and risk could be managed through structured conditions.

The child remained primarily in the mother’s care, but the court ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time and introducing overnight access.

The order included behavioural conditions, supervision within the father’s household, and a future review following renewed OCL involvement.

Following a bifurcated family law trial concerning custody, residency, and child support, the trial judge issued a decision changing the child’s primary residence from the father to the mother.

After the trial judge passed away before addressing costs, another judge was assigned to determine costs based on written submissions.

The successful parent sought substantial indemnity costs relying in part on an offer to settle that matched the trial outcome on the residential issue.

The court found that the offer justified substantial recovery costs for the portion of the litigation concerning the residence issue after the offer was served, while the remaining amounts were assessed on a partial recovery basis.

Costs were fixed at $28,983.38, including an amount attributable to support issues enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.