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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,000.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order that imposed testing requirements and access restrictions based on his COVID-19 vaccination status, and raised issues regarding the vaccination of the children.

The Divisional Court set aside the restrictions related to the father's vaccination status, finding the motion judge erred in imposing them.

The court reserved its decision on the vaccination of the children and the ultimate parenting schedule, directing the parties to attempt to agree on a temporary schedule in the interim.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence of the children, and support.

The respondent sought shared parenting and the sale of the home.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession, finding it was in the children's best interests to remain in the home while the respondent had alternative accommodation with his parents.

The court ordered joint decision-making, primary residence with the applicant, and specified parenting time for the respondent.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child and spousal support.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, but restricted it solely to issues concerning COVID-19 vaccination.

The court recommended the appeal be heard alongside a related case and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $4,500.

The applicant father brought a motion in a high-conflict parenting dispute seeking to terminate the children's current counselling and commence reconciliation counselling to re-establish his parenting time.

The respondent mother agreed to terminate the current counselling but proposed trauma therapy before reconciliation counselling.

The court found no basis to delay reconciliation counselling and ordered the parties to immediately engage in reconciliation counselling with a newly appointed therapist pursuant to section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking over $540,000 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two adult children, primarily for the son's dental school expenses in the United States.

The responding party father argued that his support obligations had terminated under their separation agreement and that both children had unilaterally terminated their relationships with him.

The court found that both children remained dependants while pursuing their post-secondary degrees and that retroactive support was appropriate effective January 1, 2009.

However, the court declined to order the father to contribute to the son's dental school expenses or the daughter's section 7 expenses, finding that both children had unjustifiably and unilaterally terminated their relationships with their father.

The father was ordered to pay $129,000 in table amount child support arrears.

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.