Court File and Parties
CITATION: Spigelski v Leblanc, 2026 ONSC 2464
COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-00000080-0001
DATE: 2026-04-24
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kevin Spigelski, Applicant
AND:
Nicolle Leblanc, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice F. Wood
COUNSEL: Applicant, Self-Represented
Jonathan Kline, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 24, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The motion formally before the court today is a request by the Applicant for permission to file a Form 14B cross-motion in response to the 14B motion recently brought by the Respondent. Briefly, the within matter is a Motion to Change commenced by the Respondent. In that proceeding, the Respondent seeks changes with respect to parenting. That proceeding has moved its way through the relevant hearings and a Trial Management Conference is booked in the near future.
[2] The Respondent recently brought a 14B motion to make amendments to her Motion to Change. She wished to formally withdraw a request for a change in child support which she did not wish to pursue. The Applicant attempted to file responding materials to that motion, but was unable to do so. The Respondent’s motion was granted by Walters J. on March 30, 2026 (the Walters Order).
[3] The Applicant then brought the within motion, in which he seeks wide ranging procedural relief. At its core, what he wants is to be able to amend his Response to Motion to Change to include his own relief with respect to child support. He also objected to the Walters Order and asked that it be set aside
[4] Although the actual request to amend pleadings was not the motion formally before the court, the matter proceeded as a motion to amend the pleadings. Both parties have addressed the underlying request to amend pleadings in their materials. It is important for both parties that this matter proceed on its merits, and addressing the parties’ real concerns rather than procedural wrangling is appropriate and in line with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules as set out in Rule 2.
[5] After discussion, it became evident that the Applicant’s primary concern is whether the Respondent has complied with disclosure requirements set out in the final order of Walters J. dated June 30, 2023 (the Final Support Order).
Motion to Amend
[6] Where a party’s concern is with compliance with an existing order, that needs to be addressed pursuant to Rule 1(8) and 26 of the Family Law Rules. A Motion to Change is not the appropriate process to address enforcement concerns. Only if a change is sought should a Motion to Change be commenced.
[7] The parties agree that child support has been varied annually based upon the parties’ Line 15000 incomes. The Applicant is concerned that the Respondent’s Line 15000 does not accurately reflect her income and seeks additional disclosure to determine that. The Final Support Order addresses annual disclosure requirements. Accordingly, what the Applicant is seeking is in the nature of enforcement of that order, and not variation. Compliance with disclosure requirements can and should be pursued separately from this proceeding. If court intervention is required with respect to compliance with the annual disclosure requirements, the Applicant has access to the mechanisms in Rules 1(8) and 26.
[8] None of that should hold up a determination of the parenting issues. The Motion to Change was commenced almost a year ago. It is scheduled, as noted, for a Trial Management Conference in the very near future. Leaving aside any costs associated with an adjournment, adding the disclosure issues to this matter at this stage would serve only to delay the resolution of important parenting issues.
[9] Preventing the Applicant from adding child support related issues to the current proceeding does not impede his ability to pursue relief and there is no prejudice to him. On the other hand, there is the potential for real prejudice, particularly to the parties’ child, in delaying the parenting issues, which is what would happen if new issues were added at this late stage. Logan needs finality and certainty.
[10] The Applicant’s motion, which at its core is a motion to amend, is dismissed.
Set Aside
[11] A court may change (including set aside) an order pursuant to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules. That rule provides:
(19) The court may, on motion, change an order that,
(a) was obtained by fraud;
(b) contains a mistake;
(c) needs to be changed to deal with a matter that was before the court but that it did not decide;
(d) was made without notice; or
(e) was made with notice, if an affected party was not present when the order was made because the notice was inadequate or the party was unable, for a reason satisfactory to the court, to be present.
[12] There is some basis to the Applicant’s argument that he was unable, for a satisfactory reason, to respond to the Respondent’s 14B motion before the Walters Order was made. He attempted to file responding materials but was unable to do so as a result of clerical errors on his part. For the reasons set out above, however, there is no basis to conclude that the result would have been any different had the Applicant filed his materials. The Respondent’s 14B motion sought only to amend what amounted to typographical errors in the Motion to Change.
[13] Whether his failure to file responding materials in a timely fashion was ‘reasonable’ does not therefore need to be determined.
[14] The relief the Applicant seeks is further disclosure. He has the ability to seek that disclosure outside of these proceedings. The amendment does not impact his ability in that regard in any way.
[15] Accordingly, the motion to set aside the Walters Order is dismissed.
Costs
[16] The Respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $2,700. The Respondent was entirely successful. Significant time was spent sifting through confusing materials. The costs sought are modest and proportionate. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent costs fixed at $2,700. Those costs shall be set off against costs owing by the Respondent to the Applicant.
Justice F. Wood
Date: April 24, 2026