Neil Jeffrey Arnold

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and for an order requiring the respondent father to consent to counselling for their child.

The father brought motions regarding primary residence and OCL involvement, which were adjourned.

The court ordered the father to consent to the child's counselling at a specific agency.

For child support, the court applied a set-off calculation based on the parties' current incomes, resulting in the father paying $43 per month, and capped section 7 expenses at $1,000 per child annually.

The claim for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice to the trial judge, as there was insufficient evidence regarding compensatory claims or need.

The moving party brought a motion for temporary relief within a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations and fix arrears.

He argued that his income had significantly decreased since his days as a successful mining executive, culminating in a consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary relief, finding no material change in circumstances because his current income was comparable to the income known and imputed to him at the time the final consent order was made in 2014.

The court held that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence regarding his income deductions and actual financial means.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a separation agreement drafted and mediated by the parties' religious pastor.

The pastor, who owed the parties a significant amount of money, acted in a conflict of interest.

The husband, suffering from significant medical and cognitive issues, signed the agreement without independent legal advice.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found the agreement was unconscionable, failed to reflect legislative objectives, and was signed under circumstances where the husband was unable to protect himself.

The separation agreement was set aside in its entirety.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change a final order, seeking security for costs and an order barring further motions without leave, due to the respondent's failure to pay nearly $40,000 in prior judgments and costs.

The court found that while allowing the motion to change to proceed was an abuse of process given the respondent's willful non-compliance, a stay would cause an injustice because the respondent's motion had prima facie merit regarding spousal support overpayment.

The court denied the stay and the request to bar further motions, but ordered the respondent to post security for costs in the amount of $15,139.38, representing the total of outstanding costs awards.

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.