Nima Amiri

On a family law motion, the moving party sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending trial under ss. 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court reviewed the statutory factors, including the children’s best interests, existing orders, financial circumstances, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The evidentiary record was materially conflicting, lacked corroboration on key allegations, and did not permit credibility findings on the paper record.

The court found no sufficient basis to conclude that continued shared occupation posed an adverse impact warranting interim exclusive possession.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-moving party.

The Applicant Father brought a motion to immediately terminate spousal support and reduce life insurance obligations.

The Respondent Mother opposed immediate termination, seeking retroactive increases based on cost of living or income, stepped-down support post-retirement, and continued life insurance.

The court ordered the Father to pay retroactive spousal support increases from June 1, 2014, and to continue monthly spousal support until his retirement on November 1, 2025, at which point it would be reduced to $0.

The Father was also ordered to maintain the life insurance policy until spousal support is reduced to $0.

The court found the Father's planned retirement constituted a material change in circumstances, but the Mother's financial means (inheritance, assets, CPP eligibility) made stepped-down support after retirement inappropriate.