Shawna Nicole Downey

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order concerning child support, spousal support, life insurance, and transportation.

The applicant mother opposed the changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances for all issues.

It adjusted child and spousal support retroactively, declining the father's request to terminate spousal support, citing the child's significant special needs and the mother's caregiving responsibilities.

The father's life insurance obligation was reduced to reflect his current employment policy.

The father's request to shift transportation responsibility for the child to the mother was dismissed.

Costs were awarded against the mother due to divided success and her failure to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who never lived together, brought competing motions regarding temporary access and child support for their infant child.

The applicant sought gradually increasing unsupervised access without geographic restrictions.

The respondent sought extended supervised access at a family visit centre and various preconditions.

The court granted the applicant's motion in substantial part, ordering a phased transition from supervised to unsupervised access beginning with Saturday visits at the family visit centre, expanding to community access in Dufferin County and Peel Region, and eventually to the Greater Toronto Area.

The court increased child support to reflect the applicant's increased income and ordered proportionate contribution to daycare expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents recognizing each other's roles and building trust for the child's benefit.

The respondent wife brought a motion for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home prior to trial.

The applicant husband opposed the sale, arguing he had a competing interest under the Family Law Act because the wife would owe him an equalization payment greater than her share of the home's equity, based on his payment of carrying costs and a larger initial down payment.

The court found no legal basis for a notional credit for the down payment on a jointly owned asset and noted the husband's carrying costs could be offset by occupation rent.

The court concluded the husband failed to establish a competing interest, that a sale would not prejudice his rights, and that the wife's motion was not oppressive.

The motion for sale was granted, and the wife was awarded full recovery costs.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking authority relating to the matrimonial home’s insurance policy, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the home and access for valuation purposes.

The court declined to grant the applicant authority over the insurance policy or remediation decisions, finding it inappropriate given the respondent’s obligations to the lender and insurer and the uncertainty regarding the value of damaged contents.

The court ordered the applicant to vacate the matrimonial home and granted the respondent exclusive possession, while providing interim child and spousal support once the applicant vacated.

Issues relating to custody and access were adjourned pending further evidence.