Paul S. Pellman

This case involves a motion to change a separation agreement and consent order regarding child and spousal support.

The applicant, Anna Gillespie, sought increased retroactive spousal and child support, imputation of higher income to the respondent, Andrew Gillespie, and payment of retroactive extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to maintain the previous agreement, impute income to the applicant, and terminate spousal support.

The court declined to re-open the 2014 agreement or order disclosure prior to 2015, emphasizing the policy of respecting agreements.

The court found a material change in circumstances effective January 1, 2020, and imputed income to Anna Gillespie.

It ordered Andrew to pay child support arrears and Anna to reimburse Andrew for child and spousal support overpayments.

Spousal support was terminated effective March 31, 2022, as Anna had not made reasonable efforts towards self-sufficiency and her pre-separation efforts did not contribute to Andrew's post-separation business success.

The applicant husband and respondent brother brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent wife's property claims, including equalization and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the wife lacked standing to assert an unjust enrichment claim against the brother on behalf of the husband, dismissing that specific claim.

However, the court dismissed the remainder of the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the wife's equalization and personal unjust enrichment claims due to inconsistent evidence regarding the husband's corporate and property interests.

This endorsement addresses several outstanding issues following a previous decision, primarily concerning parenting time, shared expenses, and communication.

The court adjusted the father's weekday parenting time to include specific non-overnight periods on Tuesdays and Thursdays when he does not have weekend parenting time, with shared transportation responsibilities.

The court also clarified the sharing of daycare costs, commencing January 1, 2021, and the mother's responsibility for 407 tolls incurred solely for child transportation, acknowledging the impact of her move.

Additionally, the parties were ordered to use the Our Family Wizard app and attend questioning by videoconference.

The court declined to waive the requirement for a case conference before any further motion on parenting time, emphasizing the suitability of case conferences for such scheduling matters.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's habitual residence to be Brampton, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for relief related to parenting issues arising from her move to Scarborough, including the child attending school there.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in Scarborough and attend school there.

The decision considered the mother's valid reasons for moving, the unsustainability of her commute from Brampton, and the impracticality of maintaining equal parenting time given the distance and the father's inability to relocate.

The court also ordered that the child attend only one daycare due to the pandemic.

The applicant (wife) brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address support and disclosure issues.

The respondent (father) disputed the urgency and the applicant's entitlement to spousal support, arguing that full disclosure and questioning should precede any support determination.

The court found the matter urgent, noting the respondent's unexplained change in position regarding expert evidence and potential tactical delay.

The motion for a case conference was granted, with specific directions for the conference, including requirements for disclosure schedules, offers to settle temporary support, and preparation for the appointment of an expert to assess the father's support income and business interests.

The parties separated after an 18-year marriage.

The court determined the parties' incomes, imputing self-employment income to the respondent but declining to impute income to the applicant for underemployment.

The court ordered set-off child support for the parties' three children based on their respective residence schedules.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support on a compensatory basis, but her claim for retroactive support to the date of separation was dismissed due to lack of effective notice.

Both parties' claims for retroactive section 7 expenses were dismissed for lack of notice, proof, and reasonableness.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to share in its post-separation increase in value was dismissed, as she failed to establish unjust enrichment and the equalization regime adequately addressed her contributions.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment.

Parents in a child protection proceeding brought a motion to remove the child's legal representative, Ms. Samira Ahmed of Justice for Children and Youth.

The child, nearly sixteen years old and in the care of the child protection society since February 2013, opposed the motion.

The parents argued the child lacked capacity to instruct counsel, that the representative exceeded her role, that a litigation guardian should be appointed, and that the representative had misused confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child had clearly expressed views separate from both parents and the society, that legal representation was desirable, and that the representative had properly discharged her duties in advocating for the child's interests.

The applicant father sought to have child support arrears dismissed, while the respondent mother sought arrears of $23,012.00 plus costs.

The parties had entered into a separation agreement in 2009 providing for child support of $1,500.00 per month.

Subsequent material changes in the children's living arrangements occurred, including the father's relocation to British Columbia and changes in custody arrangements.

The court found that arrears were owing based on changed circumstances and applied the Child Support Guidelines retroactively.

However, exercising discretion under the Family Law Act, the court reduced the arrears from approximately $20,000.00 to $10,000.00, considering the father's financial capacity, the children's circumstances, and additional expenses paid by the father.

Following dismissal of a grandparent access application on summary judgment, the court determined costs.

The successful respondents had served an offer to settle inviting the applicant to withdraw the application and agree to mutual non‑disparagement with each party bearing their own costs.

The offer was not accepted and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Applying the usual Rule 49 cost consequences, the court held the respondents were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $7,500 payable by the applicant.

The respondent brought a motion to reduce temporary child support and terminate spousal support following a claimed reduction in income after losing prior employment.

The applicant cross‑moved seeking increased child and spousal support and argued the respondent was intentionally under‑employed.

Applying the test under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the principles in Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed due to insufficient efforts to obtain comparable employment and inadequate medical evidence supporting his reduced capacity.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $66,000 and the applicant’s income was set at $25,000 for support purposes.

Based on those incomes and the shared parenting arrangement, the court varied the temporary support amounts pending trial.

Following a five-day family law trial regarding parenting, support, and the validity of a marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $119,705.54.

The applicant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that each party should bear their own costs.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the parties' respective offers to settle, and their conduct.

Finding that the respondent was the successful party and had acted reasonably throughout, while the applicant had acted unreasonably by avoiding disclosure and causing delay, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $100,000 in costs.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after an 11-year relationship.

The father, a business owner, sought joint custody, a determination of support, and enforcement of a marriage contract.

The mother sought custody, support, and equalization, challenging the marriage contract's validity.

The court found the marriage contract unenforceable due to lack of financial disclosure.

The court conditionally maintained joint custody, ordering the father to relocate closer to the child's school or face a reduction in parenting time.

The court imputed the father's income at $338,000, adding back corporate expenses and income split with his new wife, and ordered him to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support and $2,316 per month in child support.