Martha Petryshyn

A family law trial involving disputes over child support, spousal support, and equalization of family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The parties cohabited for approximately two years and five months (March 2014 to August 2017) and were married on August 9, 2014.

The applicant mother sought spousal support and equalization; the respondent father disputed the amounts and certain valuations.

The court determined child support arrears, awarded limited-term spousal support on a compensatory basis, and ordered an equalization payment based on adjusted valuations of family assets.

This decision addresses the remaining issues of spousal support between Warren Muir and Lucille Schaaf, following a prior determination that they were spouses.

The court considered the commencement, duration, and amount of spousal support.

Ms. Schaaf, aged 65 with health issues and limited employability, sought indefinite support of $1,500 monthly from July 2022.

Mr. Muir, a high-income millwright, proposed $800 monthly for three years from August 2023.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support of $1,000 per month, commencing July 1, 2022, granting Mr. Muir credit for payments already made.

No orders were made for medical/dental benefits or life insurance.

This trial determined whether the unmarried parties, Warren Muir and Lucille Schaaf, were "spouses" as defined by section 29 of the Family Law Act, which requires continuous cohabitation in a conjugal relationship for at least three years.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, finding the applicant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and self-serving statements.

Relying on the respondent's evidence and objective factors such as shared residences, financial support, and societal perception (Molodowich factors), the court concluded that the parties were indeed spouses from sometime in 2015/2016 to early 2022, satisfying the statutory definition.

This endorsement addresses the costs of previous motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant, Mr. Hurdon, argued for no costs due to divided success or, alternatively, $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The respondent, Ms. Crooks, sought full or enhanced partial indemnity costs, arguing she was substantially more successful and that the applicant's conduct increased costs.

The court found Ms. Crooks predominantly successful on the primary issues, including child support, sale of the family home, and successfully opposing Mr. Hurdon's claims for exclusive possession and valuation of Ms. Crooks' business.

The court awarded Ms. Crooks partial indemnity costs of $16,904.43, taking into account her offers to settle.

This decision addresses cross-motions between common-law spouses concerning various family law issues.

The applicant sought temporary exclusive possession of the family home, valuation of the respondent's "book of business," and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent sought joint parental decision-making, retroactive and ongoing child support, occupation rent, and the immediate sale of the family home.

The court determined the separation date as July 8, 2016.

It dismissed the applicant's requests for exclusive possession (as the home was not a matrimonial home) and the valuation of the business book (finding no joint family venture).

The court granted the applicant non-compensatory spousal support, calculated based on the respondent's income at the time of separation, not her significantly increased post-separation income.

It also granted the respondent retroactive and ongoing child support and ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the jointly owned home, subject to the applicant's right to purchase the respondent's interest.

This decision addresses cross-motions for temporary relief in a family law matter concerning an eight-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making and child support, while the father sought joint decision-making, a residence restriction, and increased parenting time.

The court ordered the father to pay child support based on his income, disallowing a deduction for prior support obligations for the temporary order.

Joint decision-making was granted, and the existing parenting schedule was maintained, denying the father's request for more frequent weekend time.

The mother consented to the residence restriction.

The father and mother brought motions regarding temporary parenting arrangements for their two children.

Both parents consented to joint custody and agreed on each other's parenting ability.

The father sought an order for a s. 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act and counselling for one child.

The mother opposed the assessment and increased access, arguing the current 10-4 schedule was the status quo.

The court found the 10-4 schedule was unilaterally imposed and not the true status quo.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with equal parenting time on a "week on/week off" schedule and a s. 30 assessment, but declined to order counselling given ongoing play therapy.

This application concerned custody, access, child support, and spousal support between separated cohabiting parents.

The court granted joint custody, establishing a gradual transition to a shared parenting schedule (week on/week off) by April 2019.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother, with an offset for shared parenting.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother, time-limited and decreasing over three years, ending December 31, 2021, subject to a material change in circumstances.

The court found the mother had been controlling regarding access but that both parents could effectively co-parent.

Following the dismissal of an application for a vesting order regarding a 25% interest in a home, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,000.57, while the applicant argued costs should be paid from the estates or not at all.

Applying the modern approach to estate litigation costs, the court held that the 'loser pays' principle applied, as the litigation did not arise from the testators' actions or to ensure proper administration.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $4,750 plus disbursements and HST.

The applicant, an estate trustee and beneficiary of a 25% interest in a home, applied for an order vesting his interest or compelling the respondent estate trustees to sell the home.

The home was subject to a life interest granted to another beneficiary under a related estate.

The respondent estate trustees relied on their discretionary power under the wills to postpone the sale of the property.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Di Michele, holding that the estate trustees' power to postpone the sale ousted the three-year vesting rule under section 9 of the Estates Administration Act, and their decision to allow the life interest to continue was a valid exercise of discretion.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a 14.5-year marriage.

The applicant had retired shortly after separation, while the respondent was on long-term disability.

The court found that decisions regarding retirement made during the marriage triggered entitlement to spousal support.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $342 per month, set at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to reflect the applicant's obligation to become self-supporting.

The mother brought a motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal from a crown wardship order.

The underlying issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in making the child a crown ward instead of approving a customary care agreement supported by the mother, the First Nation, and the children's aid society.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the extension.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding the mother had a firm intention to appeal, reasonably explained the delay due to health issues, and raised important issues regarding customary care agreements.

The motion was granted, allowing 90 days to perfect the appeal.

Decision on costs following dismissal of a motion for sale of a matrimonial home brought under the Partition Act.

The successful respondent was self‑represented and sought compensation for 47 hours of preparation and attendance at an hourly rate.

Applying the principles from Fong v. Chan and Mustang Investigations v. Ironside, the court held that a self‑represented litigant may recover costs only if they demonstrate that lawyer‑like work caused an opportunity cost through foregone remunerative activity.

Because the respondent only established that she used one vacation day from employment to prepare for the motion, the court awarded a modest allowance reflecting that opportunity cost together with reasonable disbursements.

The applicant brought a motion under the Partition Act seeking an interlocutory order for the sale of the matrimonial home prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting a claim for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act and arguing that a sale would prejudice her substantive property rights and disrupt the children's living arrangements.

The court considered the interaction between the Partition Act and the Family Law Act, noting that a sale should not proceed where it would prejudice a spouse’s rights under the family law regime.

Finding that the respondent had at least an arguable case for exclusive possession and that the children’s best interests and housing stability were significant considerations, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court therefore declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home before trial.

Following motions in a family law dispute involving custody, access, and support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant was primarily successful on the core issues of custody and access and on the determination that spousal support should be based on part-time employment income.

The respondent achieved some success on related matters, including expanded access, temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and denial of a restraining order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of reasonableness governing costs awards, the court determined that the applicant was the party primarily successful but that her success was tempered by the respondent’s partial success and excessive motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim custody, child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, finding her proposed schedule minimized third-party care for the young children.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,273 per month based on his income.

Spousal support was denied at this time due to the father's assumption of significant family debt to purchase the mother's interest in the matrimonial home.

The father was granted 60 days of exclusive possession to complete the buyout.