Stephane A. MonPremier

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of two children with special needs.

The father sought primary residence of one child and a change of school for both children, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo.

Applying the best interests of the child criteria under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the motion in part, ordering that the primary residence of one child be changed to the father and that both children attend the father's proposed school.

The parties also consented to a parenting coordination agreement to address ongoing conflict.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife), retroactive to May 1, 2016.

The court found that the responding party's post-separation bankruptcy and subsequent remarriage constituted material changes in circumstances.

Given the responding party's reduced need, her failure to maximize her earning capacity, and the increased household income from her new spouse, the court reduced spousal support to a nominal amount of $1 per month for five years, retroactive to April 1, 2017.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order, seeking to establish the current amount of child support for an adult child attending university away from home, and to calculate retroactive support.

The respondent father argued that the child should contribute to her own expenses and that RESP funds should reduce his obligation.

The court found that the RESP was funded solely by the applicant and did not reduce the respondent's share.

The court ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share (61%) of the child's post-secondary expenses, fixed at $1,220 per month, plus a reduced pro-rated table amount of $390 per month for the months the child lives at home.

The court also ordered retroactive support from January 2014, the date of effective notice, rather than 2012 as requested by the applicant.

Following a decision on interim motions regarding spousal support, child support, and financial disclosure, the court considered the issue of costs.

Both parties had brought motions and achieved divided success.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Given the divided success, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench custody order requiring the return of the child and establishing shared custody.

The respondent opposed recognition and brought a cross‑motion to transfer the proceeding to Haileybury, Ontario, and requested that an Ontario court assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The court held that a triable issue existed regarding whether the respondent had been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Alberta order was made, precluding summary judgment under s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the proceeding was transferred to Haileybury on the balance of convenience.

The court further held that Ontario jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Act required determination after a full hearing with viva voce evidence.