Mark Trenholme

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim order, seeking to terminate child support for an adult child and to temporarily terminate ongoing spousal support and arrears due to a medical inability to work.

On consent, the court ordered the final termination of child support as the child was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support and arrears without prejudice, noting the parties agreed that the medical evidence regarding the father's inability to work needed to be supplemented.

The court also ordered the exchange of updated financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The main issues at trial were parenting arrangements, decision-making authority, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in marginalizing conduct and attempted to alienate the children from the applicant father.

The court ordered a shared parenting week-about schedule and granted final decision-making authority to the father, subject to a detailed communication protocol.

On equalization, the court found that funds advanced by the mother's parents were a loan, and waived the father's equalization payment due to the mother's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of household contents.

The mother was ordered to reimburse the father for post-separation adjustments.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with three children, the court addressed child support, spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court set the respondent’s income at $45,000 for child support purposes and ordered guideline child support of $858 per month.

The court imputed income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined that spousal support was not warranted under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The principal property dispute concerned the value of the respondent’s insurance Book of Business, with the court accepting the respondent’s expert valuation methodology distinguishing between a brokerage and a producer’s client list.

The court fixed the value of the Book of Business at $107,500 and ordered a modest equalization payment and reimbursement of certain household expenses.

The accused was charged with 14 offences, including assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his former spouse.

The trial was a credibility contest between the accused and the complainant, with no independent corroborating evidence of the alleged violence.

Applying the W(D) framework, the court found that the conflicting evidence left it in a state of reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The mother brought a motion seeking custody of one child and supervised access for the father, while accepting on a temporary basis that the other child would remain in the father’s custody.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer supported the motion and presented evidence regarding the children’s views and the younger child’s educational and developmental needs.

The court found that the father had failed to comply with prior orders and had not supported the children’s relationship with their mother, contributing to the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

Concluding that further delay would undermine the children’s relationship with the mother and be contrary to their best interests, the court granted the relief sought.

Orders were made transferring custody of the younger child to the mother, providing supervised access to the father, and establishing contact between the siblings.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

They have a 28-year-old cognitively impaired daughter who remained living with the respondent father.

The father engaged in a severe campaign of parental alienation, completely severing the daughter's relationship with the applicant mother.

The mother sought custody and access, as well as spousal support.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make custody orders for adult disabled children.

Despite the father's alienating conduct, the court ordered that the daughter's primary residence remain with the father to respect her expressed wishes, but mandated regular access for the mother.

The court also imputed income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month in retroactive and ongoing spousal support.