Maybelline Massey

Family law trial following separation of a married couple with one child.

The parties resolved most issues by consent at the outset of trial, leaving parenting time, spousal support, equalization, occupational rent, and carrying costs.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule with the mother as primary parent, ordered periodic spousal support of $1,200 per month on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, awarded $10,000 in net retroactive spousal support after crediting $30,000 in post-separation transfers, and determined an equalization payment of $22,434.29 owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The respondent's claim for occupational rent was dismissed, and the money taken from the respondent's mother's farm account for home renovations was found not to be a loan.

A divorce was granted.

The moving party husband brought a motion to change a final spousal support order, seeking to terminate his support obligation after retiring early at age 55.

He claimed his retirement was involuntary due to physical limitations from his physically demanding job, though he provided no corroborating medical evidence.

The responding party wife opposed the motion, arguing the retirement was voluntary.

The court found the husband's testimony credible and held that his involuntary retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered a reduction in spousal support effective the date of his retirement, based on his reduced pension income.

The parties made written submissions on costs following the respondent's success on the applicant's motion for reunification therapy and the respondent's cross-motion for child support.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $6,709.26, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs or costs should be fixed at $2,500.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting that a tempered approach to costs is appropriate in cases involving decision-making and parenting time.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $2,945, payable by the applicant within 60 days.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging non-disclosure, duress, lack of understanding, and unconscionability.

The court found that both parties had independent legal advice, the applicant understood the agreement, and there was no duress.

The court also found the applicant had hidden assets and misrepresented her financial position.

Applying the Miglin framework and section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, the court upheld the agreement and dismissed the application, including the claim for retroactive child support.