Nicola Munro

The applicant mother sought ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support after unilaterally relocating with the children from British Columbia to Ontario.

The respondent father, who incurred extraordinary expenses to exercise parenting time across the country, sought a reduction in support and the imputation of income to the applicant.

The court imputed a minimum wage income to the applicant, terminated spousal support as of December 31, 2022, and capped the respondent's income at $150,000 for child support purposes under section 4 of the Guidelines to account for his high access costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $103,204 in retroactive child support, while the applicant was ordered to repay $8,645 in overpaid spousal support.

The respondent brought a motion for the pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession of the home under the Family Law Act until the parties' children graduated from high school.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for exclusive possession that would defeat the respondent's presumptive right to a sale.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the parties' current living arrangement on the same property and concluded that a sale was in the best interests of the children.

The motion for sale was granted and the cross-motion for exclusive possession was dismissed.

On a family law motion, the respondent spouse sought interim spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage with two children.

The parties had previously resolved custody, access, and child support by consent.

The moving party had historically been a stay-at-home parent and had recently lost employment in a family business, leaving limited income aside from a training program stipend and child support.

The court held that despite imputed income of $24,000 and the payor spouse’s ongoing expenses for the matrimonial home and child support, the moving party remained entitled to interim support.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following a trial addressing custody, access, and child support, the court determined outstanding claims for special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found daycare expenses incurred due to the custodial parent’s employment qualified as s. 7 expenses but limited retroactive recovery where documentation had not been provided to the other parent in advance.

Partial retroactive contributions for proven daycare costs were ordered, and ongoing proportional payment of daycare expenses was established.

Claims for extracurricular activity costs, including swimming lessons and dance-related expenses, were dismissed because the expenses were not “extraordinary” within the meaning of s. 7(1.1) of the Guidelines and would reasonably be covered by the basic table amount of child support.

A custody dispute following separation involved competing claims for sole custody versus joint custody of three children.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and evidence regarding the parties’ historical parenting roles, communication abilities, and conduct affecting the children’s welfare.

While the father sought joint custody and a week‑about parenting schedule, the court found the parties lacked the level of cooperation and communication necessary for joint decision‑making.

The mother had historically been the primary caregiver and demonstrated a greater willingness to facilitate the children’s relationship with the father.

Sole custody was therefore granted to the mother, with a structured access regime granting the father regular parenting time and extended periods including a week every third week and shared holiday arrangements, together with updated child support obligations.

A motion to change a prior custody order under the Children’s Law Reform Act was brought in relation to the residence and parenting arrangement of a child who had historically lived with the maternal grandmother and mother.

The father sought a substantial increase in parenting time and effectively a shared or primary residence arrangement, relying in part on a prior Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending that the child reside with him.

The court held that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests as required by s. 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principles articulated in Gordon v. Goertz.

While the father had undertaken counselling and ceased marijuana use, the court found ongoing concerns regarding judgment, past drug use in the child’s presence, criminal convictions, and instability in his personal and financial circumstances.

The court varied the order only to clarify joint custody and impose safety and substance‑use conditions on the father’s access while maintaining the child’s primary residence with the mother and grandmother.