Nancy Mary Pringle

The respondent brought a motion to stay proceedings, arguing that a dispute resolution clause in the parties' separation agreement mandated binding arbitration for parenting time disputes under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The applicant opposed, contending the clause did not meet the mandatory formalities for "secondary arbitration agreements" as required by Ontario Regulation 134/07.

The court found that while the clause intended to provide for secondary arbitration, it failed to include the necessary provisions stipulated by the regulation.

Consequently, the clause did not constitute an enforceable arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, and the court dismissed the respondent's motion to stay the proceedings.

The court determined costs following a trial on custody, access, and child and spousal support, and a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent, who was legally aided, sought costs for both the motion and the trial.

The applicant, who was self-represented, did not make submissions.

The court fixed costs for the Rule 1(8) motion at $2,800 inclusive of HST, and trial costs at $9,605 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the respondent to be the more successful party despite some divided success.

The applicant's obstinacy and "pick and choose" approach to court orders were noted as factors increasing the difficulty of the case.

In a family law proceeding following separation after a long marriage, the remaining issue concerned the appropriate imputation of income to both parties for purposes of determining spousal support.

The applicant alleged that the respondent had intentionally reduced his income after separation, while the respondent argued that the applicant was underemployed and capable of earning more than her reported income from retail work.

The court accepted evidence of broader economic factors affecting the respondent’s earnings and declined to find intentional income reduction.

However, the court found the applicant’s reported income unrealistically low and imputed a higher earning capacity to her.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines midpoint, the court ordered spousal support of $2,000 per month effective November 1, 2010 with arrears payable and a four‑year review period.