Court File No. FC-25-00000214-0000
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
B E T W E E N:
LINDSEY ANDERSON
Applicant
- and -
TYLER PARSONS
Respondent
PROCEEDINGS
BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. ROGER
on June 12, 2026, at L’ORIGNAL, Ontario
(ZOOM PLATFORM UTILIZED DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPEARANCES:
A. Southern Counsel for Lindsey Anderson
D. Paolucci Counsel for Tyler Parsons
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
Transcribed verbatim as spoken on the record for purposes of judicial review and can be checked for accuracy by listening to the Liberty DCR audio recording
3411_CR02_20260612_092434__10_ROGERP.dcr
Background Information
The parties cohabited for about 21 years and separated about June 2025. They have one son who is 13 years old. For most of the parties’ relationship, they lived in Barrhaven. They moved to Russell three years ago, and their son has attended school in Russell for the last three years.
The parties jointly own a home in Russell that is likely worth over $800,000, with equity in the home probably close to $400,000. The respondent father currently lives in the home with his new spouse and her children. The applicant mother rents an apartment nearby. They share decision making responsibilities and have a 50 percent parenting regime since separation. Both appear equally involved in the life of their son. A consent order was made at a November case conference, and the respondent father pays under that order $584 per month in child support and $987 per month in spousal support. This matter is currently on the September trial list.
The applicant mother brings this motion seeking various relief. Most of her motion is dismissed. Here are my reasons.
Striking or Dismissing Pleadings
Striking or dismissing pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rule is a discretionary relief. It is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly, in limited and exceptional circumstances, when no other remedy would be sufficient. The circumstances of this case are not of that nature.
Some of the respondent father’s disclosure may have been outstanding and he has occasionally been late complying with orders and support payments. However, the respondent father has now complied with the bulk, if not all of his disclosure obligations, and he is currently complying with his support obligations as previously ordered. What, if anything, is outstanding must be disclosed by the respondent father, but this can be achieved by the parties’ lawyers communicating and providing what is outstanding. It would not be in the interest of justice to strike or to dismiss the respondent’s pleadings in these circumstances.
Interim Support
An order for child and spousal support was made in November 2025. That order is sufficient until the trial of this matter. Even should the trial be delayed for some unknown reasons, that order is likely still sufficient unless there is some important change that occurs between then and now.
Interim orders are “band-aid” solutions until the trial of the matter. They are not meant to be perfect. They are not final orders. They should generally be sufficient until trial, subject of course to important changes of circumstances. This is not that case, particularly with the home of the parties being sold in the near future and these funds being available to the parties in due course.
One exception to the above is Section 7 expenses which have not been sufficient addressed. These should be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective income. Using the parties’ 2025 income, on a temporary basis, I fix their respective proportions at 25 percent for the applicant mother and at 75 percent for the respondent father, payable within 10 days of receipts being provided.
Sale of the Home
The parties now agree that their jointly owned home be sold. They disagreed previously over what portion of the net proceeds of sale should be paid out to each one of them, but during the course of the motion they agreed with my suggestion that all of the net proceeds should equally be paid out to them. An order shall therefore go for the sale of the home with the net proceeds of sale being equally paid to the parties on a without prejudice basis to their respective arguments.
To be more precise, the home shall be listed for sale prior to June 30, 2026. I understand that the respondent father has already provided the name of three acceptable real estate agents to the applicant mother. The applicant mother shall choose one from these three agents prior to June 20, 2026, and the selected agent shall be appointed and list the home for sale prior to June 30, 2026.
The real estate agent shall list the home for sale for the listing price agreed upon by the parties. Failing an agreement on the listing price, the listing agent shall list the home for the midpoint amount between the parties’ respective preferred listing price. For example, if one party wishes to list it for $50 and the other wishes to list it for $100, it shall be listed for $75. Of course, those numbers are not applicable, but it’s a simple illustration of the order.
The parties shall agree on the offer to be accepted, and, in case of disagreement, the parties shall first ask for the recommendations of their listing agent to be put in writing and they shall consider these recommendations. If the parties still cannot agree on whether an offer should be accepted, they shall return before me at an urgent case conference, and I will decide that issue.
The same is applicable for the contents of the home, which was not an issue before me today, but which was raised at the conclusion of oral submissions. The parties shall exchange lists of the contents they wish to keep and shall attempt to agree over the distribution of the contents of the jointly owned home. If they cannot agree, they shall return before me at an urgent case conference, and I will decide that issue for them. The intent is to try to avoid an unnecessary trial for these parties.
Change of School
This is governed by the best interests of the child. Here, the parents are in a 50 percent shared parenting regime since separation, and both are generally equally involved in the life of their 13-year-old son. Both assist with the child’s activities. The child has been going to school in Russell for the last three years. Previously he went to school in Barrhaven. The high school in Russell is part of the same building or school that he currently attends. The mother’s arguments are largely speculative. She brings no evidence that high school in Barrhaven would be better for the child. Rather, it seems that high school in Barrhaven would uproot the child from his friends and school for reasons that mostly relate to the mother’s interests in relocating to Barrhaven. However, even the mother’s interests in moving to Barrhaven are largely speculative and largely arbitrary.
Considering all the evidence, the best interests of the child currently favours attending high school in Russell. This is where the child has gone to school for the last three years, where his current friends are, and the evidence indicates that the child is doing well at school in Russell.
The parties shall agree or attempt to agree on the wording of this order by June 18, 2026, failing which the issue of the wording of this order shall return urgently before me at a case conference and I will then finalize the wording of the order. I do hope this will not be necessary.
... PORTIONS OF PROCEEDINGS NOT TRANSCRIBED, AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST (2:55 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.)
R E C E S S (3:52 p.m.)
U P O N R E S U M I N G : (4:30 p.m.)
... PORTIONS OF PROCEEDINGS NOT TRANSCRIBED,RELATING TO SUBMISSIONS, AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST (4:30 p.m. – 4:31 p.m.)
Costs
The successful party on the bulk of this motion is the respondent father. Striking or dismissing his pleadings were both dismissed, the change of school which was one of the two most important issues argued today was also dismissed and the variation of support, except for Section 7 expenses being changed from 50 percent to 25 percent and 75 percent was also dismissed. On the sale of the home issue, the other important issue argued today, the evidence indicates that the respondent delayed what should have been an earlier decision to sell the home and that this motion being brought or threatened to be brought was necessary to focus his attention on the urgency of this issue being addressed. However, as early as May 8, 2026, before materials were served only on June 2, 2026, the father did offer to sell the home, albeit linked to a dismissal of other claims. By the time of the motion, both parties agreed to the sale of the home and their disagreement was limited to what portion of the net proceeds should be paid to each of them.
Looking at the outcome of this motion broadly, there were essentially four issues to be resolved. At best, the applicant had some success on the sale of the home issue even though the father was prepared, albeit late, which is one out of four issues at best for her, and three out of four issues for the respondent. I do not consider being successful on Section 7 expenses having had any impact on costs and, in any event, it is a miniscule victory that cannot justify such a motion being brought or cannot impact my assessment of reasonable costs.
Not one of the offers exchanged between the parties is applicable to trigger a higher scale of costs, but all have been considered as relevant factors when addressing costs.
This was not a complicated motion. The change of school and the sale of the home issues are the only issues that needed to be addressed considering the existing support order. As I indicated during the motion, it was not necessary to bring a motion seeking a change of support in the face of an existing order with no important change in circumstances.
The applicant, despite being largely unsuccessful, seeks $6,780 in costs. The respondent indicates that his full indemnity costs total $8,432. Both parties have made offers, but as indicated none triggers a higher scale of costs.
Had the outcome been equally divided between the parties, I likely would have ordered no costs. Considering that the respondent was essentially successful on three out of four issues, and that prior to the motion returning he indicated a willingness to sell the home, I have decided that what is fair and reasonable is to fix the costs at 75 percent, or if you wish, three out of four issues in favour of the respondent as reflecting a reasonable split considering the divided outcome.
Considering that the applicant’s full costs total $17,127, the amount of $8,432 incurred by the respondent is reasonable, proportionate and within the reasonable expectations of the applicant.
When considering the appropriate scale of costs, this is a case where partial indemnity is the appropriate scale of costs. Based on partial indemnity costs, 60 percent of $8,432 is $5,059.20, and assessing the split considering the result at 75 percent of that amount to account for the somewhat, to some limited extent divided success, I arrive at $3,794.40.
Consequently, the costs of this motion are fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $3,794.40, payable by the applicant mother to the respondent father. Considering the financial circumstances of the parties, I have decided that if the applicant prefers, these costs shall be subtracted from her share of the net proceeds of the home. Consequently, these costs may be paid now (or within 30 days) or, if the applicant prefers, shall be subtracted from her share of the net proceeds resulting from the sale of the home before any such amount is paid out to her.
... END OF EXCERPTS OF PROCEEDINGS (4:39 p.m.)
... MATTER COMPLETED
(4:51 p.m.)