Marlene J. VanderSpek

The moving party brought a motion to change a prior support order, seeking a reduction of child and spousal support and the fixing and payment schedule of arrears.

The responding party opposed the reduction and sought increased spousal support and additional orders regarding insurance and benefits.

The court applied the material change test from Willick v. Willick and found that the moving party failed to establish a material change in circumstances since the original trial decision.

The court maintained the previously imputed income of $90,000, confirmed ongoing child support for an adult child pursuing graduate studies, and adjusted spousal support within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The motion to reduce support was dismissed and the prior order largely remained in force.

Following a family law trial concerning custody, mobility, and child support, the successful party sought costs after obtaining sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to another province.

The court applied the presumption under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Although an offer to settle had been made, the court held that the final order was not as favourable as the offer and therefore declined to award substantial indemnity costs under rule 18.

The court also applied rule 24(10) and appellate authority restricting recovery of costs for earlier procedural steps where no costs order had been made.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount reflecting only trial-related steps and submissions.

In a family trial concerning custody, mobility, access, and child support for a very young child, the court rejected joint custody because the parties lacked the ability to communicate and co-parent effectively.

Sole custody was granted to the mother, and she was permitted to relocate to Edmonton with the child after the court applied the best-interests analysis governing relocation cases.

The court ordered liberal access when the father is physically present in Alberta or the child is in Ontario, with interim access modifications before the move.

Retroactive and ongoing child support were set based on the father's declared and imputed income, and further orders were made respecting special expenses, benefits, life insurance, and passport cooperation.

The child protection agency sought a temporary order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act continuing a previous without‑prejudice order placing three children primarily in the mother’s care with supervision and access arrangements involving the father.

The court reviewed evidence of family conflict, the son’s aggressive behaviour, and parental challenges including mental health concerns and emotional volatility.

Applying the statutory principles of best interests of the child, preservation of family integrity, and the least disruptive course of action, the court determined different interim arrangements for each child.

The son and older daughter were placed with the mother subject to supervision and access to the father, while the youngest daughter was ordered to reside with both parents on an alternating schedule under supervision.

The Family Law Act custody motion was stayed pending the child protection proceeding.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought a determination on custody, access, child support, and section 7 expenses for their four-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that despite past conflict, both parents were loving and the child was thriving in their care.

The court ordered joint custody with a detailed access schedule, imputed an income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, and ordered the parents to equally share section 7 expenses including Montessori school tuition.