Neil Jeffrey Arnold

The parties brought competing family law motions concerning custody, access, child support, and related financial issues.

The court held that most issues raised by the parties could not be fairly determined on conflicting affidavit evidence and ordered that the outstanding matters proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 14(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests due to the involvement and evidence of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and expanded the father’s weekday access to include an overnight visit.

Restrictions on corporal punishment were removed and the alcohol condition was modified to prohibit consumption during parenting time.

Income was not imputed to either party for support purposes and most support issues were deferred to trial.

A respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to vary existing temporary child and spousal support orders on the basis that one child had completed post-secondary education and that the parties’ employment circumstances had changed.

The other party brought a cross‑motion seeking to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to support arrears and unpaid costs and requested additional section 7 expenses.

The court terminated child support for the adult child, adjusted child support for the remaining child based on updated income figures, and reduced spousal support in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines midpoint.

The court declined to add further section 7 expenses and refused to strike the respondent’s pleadings.

Both motions were otherwise dismissed and no costs were awarded.