Michael Purves-Smith

On a family law motion to vary interim spousal support, the moving party sought a mid-range SSAG amount while the responding party sought the high-range amount.

The court held that interim quantum is generally determined using an income-levelling approach under the SSAG rather than a detailed budgetary-levelling approach, subject to case-specific exceptions.

Although the court acknowledged that budgetary analysis may be useful in some interim contexts, it declined to apply that approach on the facts, including incomplete evidence regarding household cohabitation economics and comparative post-separation savings trends.

The court ordered spousal support at the high SSAG amount of $921 monthly commencing July 1, 2025.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2014 consent order for shared custody, seeking sole decision-making and changes to parenting time, as well as imputing income to the respondent mother and excluding his 2016 capital gains from child support calculations.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the complete failure of the shared parenting regime and high conflict between the parties.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility for major healthcare, education, and extracurricular decisions to the respondent mother, subject to consultation.

The existing week-about parenting schedule was maintained.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding her educational upgrading reasonable, but allowed the applicant to exclude a non-recurring 2016 capital gain from his income for support purposes.

This motion concerned an applicant's request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a family law order concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant had prepared the notice within the prescribed period but failed to effect service in time.

The respondent opposed the extension, citing lack of merit and prejudice to the child.

The court, applying the well-known factors for extending time to appeal, found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention, the proposed appeal lacked merit, particularly as it sought to overturn factual findings justified by the record, including breaches of prior orders and abusive communications.

Considering the child's best interests, the court dismissed the motion for an extension of time.

In the context of a motion to change seeking to relocate the children to the United States, both parties agreed that the Office of the Children's Lawyer should be involved.

The respondent mother sought a Voice of the Child report, while the applicant father sought a full section 112 assessment.

The court ordered a Voice of the Child report, finding that the children (aged 14 and 10) were able to express their views and that the broader questions raised by the father were matters for the court to decide, not a clinician.

The mother was awarded costs of $3,991.50.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions concerning the relocation of their two children from Brampton to Scarborough.

The mother sought permission to move due to the sale of her parents' home, while the father opposed the move and sought primary residence or increased parenting time.

The court found that the mother had a compelling reason to relocate but determined that the move, as proposed, was not entirely in the children's best interests, particularly regarding the disruption to the status quo and the impact on the father-child relationship.

Applying the new Children's Law Reform Act provisions, the court ordered an interim arrangement of equal week-about parenting time for both parents, with the children to be enrolled in their previous Brampton school or an alternative Catholic school in Toronto, aiming to minimize travel and maintain stability until trial.