Richard Guy

The moving party sought to terminate ongoing spousal support payable under a prior order following a long-term marriage.

Material changes included the termination of child support, increased income of the payor, reduced employment income of the recipient, and the recipient’s long‑term cohabitation with a new partner contributing significant household income.

Applying the Family Law Act and jurisprudence on compensatory and non‑compensatory support, the court found the recipient had been adequately compensated through equalization and ten years of support, and had achieved a reasonable standard of living in her new relationship.

The court concluded the economic consequences of the marriage had been equitably addressed.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate prospectively to allow the recipient time to adjust financially.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a turbulent marriage and sought a determination of custody and access for their three young daughters.

The father sought joint or shared custody on an alternating weekly basis, while the mother sought sole custody with access reflecting the status quo.

The court found that both parents loved the children but were unable to communicate effectively or shield the children from their conflict.

Relying on the mother's role as the historical primary caregiver and the stability she provided, the court awarded sole custody to the mother.

However, to protect the father's relationship with the children, the court expanded his access to include a mid-week overnight and required his written consent for major decisions regarding relocation, education, and religion.

The court also granted a divorce and ordered the father to pay child support.

In a dependant’s support application under the Succession Law Reform Act brought by a surviving spouse against a deceased spouse’s estate, the estate respondents moved to add the applicant’s adult children as parties.

The respondents argued that the children may have a statutory obligation to support their mother under s. 32 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that, although the Succession Law Reform Act does not expressly provide a mechanism to add such parties, the principles reflected in the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules support adding persons who may share a support obligation.

The court concluded that the applicant’s adult children may have an obligation to provide support and should therefore be added as parties to ensure all potentially responsible parties are before the court.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal and child support, enforcement of a prior case conference order requiring financial disclosure and property appraisal, and potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to determine retroactive spousal support on the limited record but ordered prospective interim spousal support based on the respondent’s estimated reduced income from a new business venture.

Child support was ordered for one child whom the respondent had treated as his own despite not being the biological parent, while entitlement for another child was left contingent on proof of full-time educational attendance.

The court also ordered compliance timelines for financial disclosure, confirmation of insurance beneficiary designation, appraisal of the matrimonial home, and confirmation of health benefits coverage.

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent spouse sought a lump‑sum spousal support award to be satisfied through division of the applicant’s pension after the applicant’s post‑separation bankruptcy eliminated any potential equalization payment.

The court held that an equalization claim constitutes a provable debt in bankruptcy and is extinguished upon discharge unless the stay is lifted during the bankruptcy process.

The respondent had knowledge of the bankruptcy but failed to take timely steps to lift the stay and therefore could not indirectly pursue equalization through a lump‑sum spousal support award.

The court rejected compensatory and unjust enrichment claims but awarded limited periodic spousal support due to economic hardship caused by joint debts addressed through a consumer proposal.

Support was ordered to commence when the applicant resumed employment or received long‑term disability benefits and to terminate on December 31, 2015.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of an action.

The court considered the established factors for setting aside such dismissals, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the court accepted that these four factors generally favoured the plaintiff, it considered the additional factor of the merits of the action where the evidence was clear and unchallenged.

The court found that a previously executed full and final release barred the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants relating to an earlier action and a prior court order.

As a result, the claim lacked merit and the administrative dismissal would not be set aside.

A costs decision following a family law trial involving child support, extraordinary expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on several settlement offers under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that none of the offers were bettered at trial and therefore did not trigger Rule 18 consequences.

Although trial success was divided between the parties, the court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings by failing to properly disclose income, failing to support the children adequately after separation, and disregarding a court order.

As a result, the applicant was disentitled from claiming costs despite partial success, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The parties separated after 12.5 years of marriage and resolved custody and access of their three children.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's income for child support purposes, imputing additional income due to undisclosed earnings from various side businesses.

The court ordered retroactive child support and found that the children's extensive athletic and musical activities qualified as Section 7 extraordinary expenses, requiring proportionate contribution from the applicant.

The court also valued the matrimonial home, accounting for necessary roof repairs, and calculated the equalization of net family properties, applying various set-offs against the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

The plaintiff built a camp on an island partially owned by his former mother-in-law, the defendant.

After the plaintiff and the defendant's daughter separated, the plaintiff continued to use and maintain the camp exclusively for 20 years.

When the defendant attempted to terminate his use of the camp, the plaintiff brought an action claiming ownership or equitable relief.

The court found that while the camp was a fixture belonging to the realty, the plaintiff established claims for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court granted the plaintiff a constructive trust and a personal licence to occupy the camp for his lifetime, provided he maintains it and pays associated costs.

The defendants in an elder abuse and property dispute action brought a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' children, alleging they had maliciously meddled in the family relationship and turned the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The third parties moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the law of torts does not regulate family interactions or compensate for bruised feelings, and noted that the tort of alienation of affection was abolished in Ontario in 1978.

The parties, who were never married, separated and signed a separation agreement giving primary residence to the applicant mother.

The respondent father later retired from the Armed Forces, moved to Sudbury, and sought custody of the children or a reduction in child support.

The applicant sought to set aside the separation agreement, claiming duress and lack of disclosure regarding the respondent's pension.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding it was negotiated with counsel and based on the applicant's own counterproposal.

The court also dismissed the respondent's claim for custody, maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the children, but ordered a review due to concerns about school absenteeism.

Child support was temporarily reduced based on the respondent's pension income, with a warning that income would be imputed if he did not secure employment.