Olayemi Ayoola

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion to change a 2013 final order for spousal support, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase, reinstatement of medical benefits, and additional life insurance/pension security.

She argued a material change in circumstances based on her increased medical needs and the payor's increased post-separation income.

The court found no compensatory basis to share in the payor's post-separation income increases and no evidence of increased medical expenses.

However, the court held that the eroding effect of inflation on the recipient's fixed income constituted a material change.

The court ordered the spousal support to be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index, retroactive only to the date of effective notice in May 2019.

All other claims were dismissed.

The respondent wife brought a motion to set aside a marriage contract signed the day before the parties' wedding, arguing it was signed under duress, without independent legal advice, and with inadequate financial disclosure.

The court applied the two-step test under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act and found that the wife failed to establish any of the statutory grounds.

The court held that the wife had sufficient knowledge of the husband's assets, was not under duress, and chose not to obtain independent legal advice despite being urged to do so.

The motion to set aside the marriage contract was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change a 2010 final order, seeking ongoing and retroactive child support for the parties' adult son, who suffers from mental health issues and receives ODSP benefits.

The court found that while a material change in circumstances occurred when the son's mental health deteriorated in 2010, the applicant failed to prove he remained unable to withdraw from her charge or obtain the necessaries of life as of 2015.

The court noted the son's ability to drive, manage a vehicle, and the lack of medical evidence proving an inability to work towards self-sufficiency.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care without access for two children who had been in care for 27 months.

The mother sought the return of the children or joint care with the maternal grandmother.

The court first determined that the children were First Nations but had no identified band.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's transience, untreated mental health issues, and high-conflict behaviour.

Concluding that no less disruptive alternatives were viable, the court ordered extended society care.

Access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests and would likely impair adoption opportunities.