Rachelle Laforge

The applicant brought a fourth motion to change a final order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support adjustments, correction of a 2017 error, termination of ongoing child support for the child S., disclosure from the respondent, proportionate sharing of S.'s post-secondary expenses, and relief regarding RESPs and a CPP-D benefit.

The court granted some retroactive child support adjustments and corrected the 2017 error.

It ordered ongoing child support to continue while the child was living at home and established proportionate sharing for s. 7 expenses.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests to terminate ongoing child support, for the respondent to pay a CPP-D benefit to the child, and for relief concerning a discontinued RESP account.

The applicant, Mr. McDonald, brought a motion seeking an updated parenting assessment or, alternatively, a Voice of the Child Report.

The respondent, Ms. McMullen, sought to dismiss the motion.

The court dismissed Mr. McDonald's motion, finding that neither an assessment nor a Voice of the Child Report was necessary for the underlying Motion to Change, which primarily concerned the parents' inability to co-parent rather than clinical issues or parenting capacity.

The court also noted the applicant's outstanding unpaid costs awards from previous arbitrations.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 on a full recovery basis following successful motions for temporary sole custody and enforcement of minutes of settlement.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by unilaterally terminating access and fabricating abuse allegations shortly after signing the minutes of settlement.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs of $40,000, finding the amount proportionate and reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the respondent's conduct.

The respondent, Brent, sought to vary child and spousal support, post-secondary education provisions, and life insurance obligations retroactively due to job loss.

The applicant, Tracey, opposed these variations and sought to impute income to Brent and an order for lump sum spousal support.

The court found Brent's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and declined to impute income to him.

Child support was retroactively adjusted, resulting in an overpayment by Brent.

Post-secondary expenses were to be shared proportionally based on current incomes, reducing Brent's contribution.

Spousal support was set to zero from January 1, 2014, onwards, though entitlement was not terminated.

Tracey's request for lump sum spousal support was denied, and life insurance obligations were significantly reduced.

The moving party sought to vary child and spousal support provisions contained in a Separation Agreement and a subsequent Amending Agreement.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to vary the agreements under section 17 of the Divorce Act or section 37 of the Family Law Act.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because the agreements were not incorporated into the Divorce Order.

Under the Family Law Act, the court found it had jurisdiction to vary child support but lacked jurisdiction to vary spousal support because the parties were already divorced when the Amending Agreement was signed.