Matthew James Villeneuve

In competing family law motions, the moving party sought permission to move the children’s residence to another city, change schools, and change dentists, while the responding party sought dismissal and argued the move constituted a relocation engaging heightened statutory requirements.

Applying the Divorce Act framework, the court held the proposed move was a change in residence, not a relocation, because with schedule and transportation adjustments it was not likely to significantly impact the children’s relationship with the non-moving parent.

The court found written notice requirements were met and concluded the proposed parenting and care plan was in the children’s best interests.

Temporary terms were set for pickup/return logistics and weekday parenting end times.

The moving party’s requests were granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion concerning parenting time, child support, and spousal support following separation.

The court ordered an interim shared parenting arrangement with the children residing with each parent on alternate weeks.

The principal financial issue concerned whether annuity payments from a structured settlement arising from a catastrophic personal injury should be treated as income for child support purposes.

The court held that only the portion of the settlement attributable to loss of earning capacity should be included in income and excluded portions intended for future care and personal damages.

Based on this calculation, the respondent’s income for support purposes was set at a reduced amount and child support and interim spousal support were ordered.

Following a family law proceeding in which the parties resolved nearly all substantive issues through Minutes of Settlement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The judge held that costs for earlier motions could not be determined by the trial judge because Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules requires the judge who heard the step to determine costs promptly after that step.

Given that the substantive issues were resolved through settlement and the record did not permit a clear determination of success by either party, the court declined to find either party more successful.

The court concluded the settlement represented a compromise and that determining a winner or loser would amount to speculation.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own costs.