Rebecca Grosz

The Applicant brought a motion to find the Respondent in breach of court orders for disclosure and to strike his pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court found the Respondent in breach, struck his Answer, but allowed a 30-day period for compliance and a subsequent motion for reinstatement, emphasizing the egregious nature of the non-compliance and its impact on the administration of justice.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a full-indemnity basis.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate her child support obligations for two adult children, arguing they were no longer enrolled in educational programs and thus not "children of the marriage" under the Divorce Act.

The applicant opposed, asserting the children remained dependants and sought to stay the motion due to arrears.

The court denied the stay, finding the respondent's arrears did not warrant it.

The court determined that while a "gap year" is permissible, the children's extended periods out of school, by choice, meant they no longer qualified for support.

Child support for one child was terminated effective December 2019 and for the other effective June 2020, resulting in a significant overpayment to the respondent.

The decision was made without prejudice to future applications if the children re-enroll.

Following a successful disclosure motion in a family law proceeding, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $22,000, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the respondent.

The respondent sought to deprive the applicant of costs and claimed her own costs.

The court found the applicant was primarily successful but that full recovery was not warranted, emphasizing that costs must remain reasonable and proportional.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs and declined to order enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking recalculated spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses for 2015, 2016, and 2018.

The parties reached a partial consent agreement regarding ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court determined the parties' incomes and calculated the arrears and overpayments.

The court found the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses, but overpaid spousal support.

The mother was ordered to repay the spousal support overpayment in monthly installments.

On a motion to change a final consent order, the moving party sought rescission of child support arrears, repayment of alleged overpaid child support, and retroactive spousal support despite a full and final release.

The court applied the material change framework under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and held that the alleged post-order events, including bankruptcy, delayed tax assessments, licence suspension, and injury, were natural continuations of financial difficulties known when the order and release were executed.

The spousal support claim was additionally barred by the parties' explicit release allocating the risk of any future change, however extreme.

The responding party's cross-motion succeeded only to the extent of fixing child support arrears at $8,791.47.

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's decisions regarding spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, and the dismissal of his third-party claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of mental distress against a former neighbour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for a conceded error in calculating section 7 expenses, finding that the trial judge's determinations on income calculation, support, and the third-party claims were supported by the record and free from reversible error.