Michelle Blais

The applicant and respondent, former cohabitants of 22 years, sought resolution on spousal support and property division.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support and equal division of the jointly owned Arnprior property.

The respondent denied spousal support entitlement, sought repayment of previously paid support, and reimbursement for initial contributions to both the Ottawa and Arnprior properties.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite non-compensatory spousal support, but at a lower monthly amount than previously ordered, resulting in a significant overpayment by the respondent.

The court also determined that the respondent's initial financial contributions to the properties were intended as gifts, thus ordering an equal division of the Arnprior property's net proceeds.

The overpaid spousal support was ordered to be deducted from the applicant's share of the property proceeds.

The applicant was largely successful at a trial on a motion to change child support and sought costs of over $193,000.

The respondent argued the fees were excessive and disproportionate.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the applicant's offers triggered full recovery cost consequences.

After adjusting the applicant's counsel's hourly rate and hours claimed to be more proportional to the respondent's, the court fixed costs at $130,000.

The court also ordered that the costs award is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as it relates entirely to child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order to reduce her child support obligations effective January 1, 2016, due to a significant reduction in her income caused by mental health challenges and the sale of two of her dental practices.

The respondent father sought retroactive child support adjustments for 2013, 2014, and 2015, arguing the mother's income was higher than previously disclosed.

The court dismissed the father's claim for retroactive support, finding no material change in circumstances prior to 2016 and no blameworthy conduct by the mother.

The court determined the mother's income for support purposes from 2016 onwards by excluding non-recurring capital gains from the sale of her practices and applying a working capital analysis to her corporate income, resulting in a reduction of her ongoing child support obligations.