Maybelline Reyes 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 parties separated after a 21-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the respondent recklessly depleted insurance proceeds received after their home burned down.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding insufficient evidence of reckless depletion.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds to be divided equally after paying joint debts.

The respondent was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $13,212 out of his share of the house proceeds, and ongoing child support based on his current income.

Spousal support was set at zero due to the respondent's inability to pay.

A trial concerning child and spousal support following the separation of a long-term marriage.

The primary issues involved imputing income to both parties.

The respondent husband was employed by Canada Post until his discharge in 2020, after which he operated a courier business and subsequently worked for Ford Canada before ceasing employment.

The applicant wife had been out of the workforce for approximately 20 years at separation and subsequently received Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and determined that the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

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 mother sought an order for reunification therapy with her 14-year-old child, alleging parental alienation by the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for child support and individual counselling for the child.

The court found no overwhelming evidence of parental alienation to warrant reunification therapy on an interim motion, noting conflicting evidence and the child's stated preferences to distance herself from the mother.

The mother's motion for reunification therapy was dismissed.

The court ordered the mother to pay interim child support based on her projected income of $36,340, rather than the father's higher imputed amount, and ordered further financial disclosure.

Parenting time for the mother was ordered on a temporary, without prejudice basis, in accordance with the child's stated views and preferences.

This decision addresses the respondent's claim for costs following the applicant's unsuccessful attempt to set aside a separation agreement.

The court found the applicant's claims lacked evidentiary support, that she had received independent legal advice, and that she had failed to fully disclose her assets, purposely misleading the court.

The respondent was entirely successful in defending the application and had made reasonable offers to settle which were rejected by the applicant.

Given the applicant's unreasonable conduct and the respondent's success, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent in the amount of $15,582.69.

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.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of a material change in circumstances for a motion to change under the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the issue of material change was properly determined by summary judgment and that the factors (respondent's move, new partner, work schedule change) clearly constituted a material change under the Gordon and Goertz test, relevant to the children's best interests.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change, making the applicant the successful party at trial.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $42,535.20, while the respondent argued for a lower amount, citing reasonable behaviour and financial hardship.

The court found the respondent's trial position, seeking sole custody and severely limited access for the applicant, to be manifestly unreasonable.

The court also rejected the respondent's claim of financial hardship, noting the applicant's lower income.

Applying the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, the court reduced the applicant's former counsel's accounts by 50% and current counsel's accounts by 10%, ultimately awarding the applicant $32,310 in costs.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and spousal support following a 42-year relationship.

The respondent husband had declared bankruptcy after receiving a large severance package and dissipating assets.

The court determined the valuation date, ordered an equalization payment of $78,430, and directed the transfer of 50% of the respondent's remaining LIRA and RRSP accounts to partially satisfy the equalization and support arrears.

The court also awarded a $25,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support and $1,900 per month in ongoing spousal support due to the applicant's medical disability and the traditional nature of the marriage.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior custody order, seeking sole custody and termination of child support, alleging material changes in the children's educational needs, supervision needs, over-identification with the mother, and unmet medical needs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the two-stage test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, requiring a material change in circumstances before considering the children's best interests.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances on any of the four bases alleged, dismissing the motion to change.

The parties, separated since 2015, brought cross-motions for temporary orders concerning the residence and access of their two daughters.

The respondent sought police enforcement of access, an order compelling the applicant to retain a therapist, and make-up time.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the respondent, suspension of access, temporary custody, and permission to change the children's school.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding his requests unfounded and noting his failure to facilitate therapeutic intervention and potential parental alienation.

The respondent's motion was largely granted, affirming previous access orders and directing the applicant to comply with therapeutic requirements, encourage the children's relationship with their mother, and cease disparaging the respondent or involving his new partner in access exchanges.