Michael Bruce Wannop

The applicant sought interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 21‑year relationship and marriage with no dependent children.

The respondent acknowledged entitlement but disputed quantum, arguing declining corporate income and health issues.

The court applied the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act and principles governing interim support, emphasizing rough justice and maintaining the marital standard of living where the payor’s ability permits.

The court considered corporate income and retained earnings available to the respondent through a closely held corporation.

Interim spousal support of $8,500 per month was ordered, with retroactive effect and ancillary orders regarding health benefits and life insurance.

Costs endorsement following litigation over spousal support.

The court found that both parties had acted somewhat unreasonably: the respondent for refusing to agree to a reduction from the original support level set when the payor was employed full time, and the applicant for unilaterally ceasing spousal support contrary to a court order and failing to negotiate realistically regarding quantum and duration.

Despite this conduct on both sides, the respondent was overall substantially more successful in the litigation.

Costs were therefore fixed in favour of the respondent.

The applicant sought to vary his spousal support obligations following his retirement at age 62.

The parties had been married for 26 years, during which the respondent stayed home for eight years to care for their children.

The court found the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances but declined to impute additional income to him.

The court allowed 'double dipping' into the applicant's pension, finding the support was compensatory in nature.

The applicant was ordered to pay $2,250 per month in spousal support and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy as security.

The moving party brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, including retroactive support.

The parties had a shared custody arrangement for one child, while another child resided primarily with the responding party.

The court ordered the responding party to pay interim child support based on his employment income, with adjustments for the changing custody arrangements over time.

The court also found the moving party had established a prima facie case for interim spousal support due to her medical condition and financial dependency, ordering support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following a five‑day family law trial, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant had been largely successful at trial and sought costs exceeding $67,000, while the respondent sought comparable costs or alternatively an order that each party bear their own costs.

The court applied the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs, while considering discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the parties’ financial circumstances.

Particular weight was given to the fact that the children primarily resided with the respondent and the potential financial impact of a costs award on the custodial parent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay reduced costs of $37,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds or through set‑off against spousal support if necessary.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support retroactive to July 1, 2011, along with related relief including maintenance of health benefits, life insurance, vehicle possession, and financial disclosure from corporations controlled by the respondent.

The principal dispute concerned the parties’ respective incomes and whether income should be imputed to the applicant for purposes of calculating interim support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant and determined the respondent’s income based on an averaged assessment of fluctuating business income.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and principles governing interim support motions, the court ordered interim support based on income‑sharing and the goal of approximating the marital standard of living.

Retroactive interim spousal support and additional disclosure orders were granted.

Following a family law judgment awarding lump sum spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $64,000, while the opposing party argued for a significantly lower amount based on proportional success and reasonableness.

The court emphasized that reasonableness governs costs determinations and considered the parties’ settlement offers, litigation conduct, and the lack of disclosure of the successful party’s actual legal accounts.

Finding the claimed bill of costs excessive and containing items that constituted overhead or unsupported disbursements, the court reduced the amount and fixed a lump sum costs award.

Costs were ordered payable concurrently with the previously ordered lump sum support.

A spouse sought continued spousal support pursuant to a review clause in a separation agreement that provided for termination but allowed review before the end date.

The court held that the review was not limited to assessing self‑sufficiency and must consider all factors under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, including compensatory, contractual, and non‑compensatory bases for support.

The evidence showed the recipient spouse had left the workforce for many years to care for children, causing a lasting income disparity despite her later return to full‑time employment.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and relevant jurisprudence, the court found continued support appropriate.

To minimize future conflict between the parties, support was ordered as a lump sum rather than ongoing periodic payments.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding the interpretation of an amended agreement and the definition of an encumbrance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the clear intention of the parties was for the respondent to receive $61,000 out of the net proceeds of sale.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The father was ordered to pay child support in 1992.

In 2001, a motions judge reduced his ongoing child support obligations based on an imputed income of $9,000 due to his alcoholism and lack of earning capacity, and rescinded all outstanding arrears.

The mother appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reduction in ongoing support but set aside the rescission of arrears, finding that a present inability to pay does not foreclose future capacity to pay.

The Court also held that the dismissal of a prior application to rescind arrears does not constitute an absolute bar to future rescission if there is a change in circumstances.