Steven A. Fried

The Applicant brought a motion for an order appointing a social worker to complete a Voice of the Child Report.

The Master declined the order, finding it was outside a Master's jurisdiction under Rule 42 of the Family Law Rules.

The matter was transferred to a judge for determination based on the parties' written materials.

The parties, unmarried parents of three children, sought temporary orders regarding parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support.

The court imputed the applicant father's income for child support, ordering a higher amount than he proposed but lower than the respondent mother sought, with retroactive effect.

It also ordered a temporary contribution for s. 7 expenses and temporary spousal support.

For access, the court dismissed the need for supervised access by the respondent but ordered a gradual reintegration plan for the father, starting with visits at the paternal grandmother's home, and ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.

Separated parents brought a motion regarding their child’s schooling and interpretation of an income provision in their separation agreement.

The father sought enrollment of the child in a private homogeneous French education program, while the mother requested that the child remain in daycare temporarily pending a full trial on long‑term schooling.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court held that the evidentiary record on a motion was insufficient to determine the long‑term schooling issue and ordered the child to remain in daycare for the upcoming academic year.

The court further interpreted the separation agreement as requiring income determinations strictly based on Line 150 of each party’s tax return, rejecting deductions for union dues and exclusion of non‑recurring income.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior spousal support order, seeking a retroactive reduction based on his retirement from employment.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the retirement was voluntary and premature, that the payor was in arrears, and that disclosure deficiencies warranted dismissal of the motion.

The court held that retirement constituted a material change in circumstances contemplated by the parties’ settlement agreement and incorporated into the original order.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the principles governing variation under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, the court recalculated support based on the payor’s reduced income after retirement.

The support obligation was significantly reduced and arrears were recalculated accordingly.

The parties had an unconventional marriage, living apart for 17 years while the applicant worked abroad for the United Nations and the respondent raised their four children in Ottawa.

The applicant argued the valuation date for equalization should be April 1992, while the respondent argued it should be May 31, 2009, after a final period of cohabitation.

The court found that although the parties were separated from 2002 to 2008, there was always a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and they did in fact reconcile in May 2008.

The valuation date was determined to be the date of final separation, May 31, 2009.

The responding party sought to rescind a restraining order previously issued in a family law proceeding by submitting an affidavit requesting that the order be set aside.

No formal Notice of Motion was served or filed.

The court reviewed the affidavit and determined that the information provided did not justify rescinding the existing restraining order.

The court held that the restraining order would remain in effect until further order.

The request to rescind the order was therefore refused.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to vary a prior access order, requesting supervised access, disclosure of the respondent father's mental health records, and restraining relief due to concerns about the father's deteriorating mental health and erratic behaviour.

Evidence showed the father had a prior psychiatric diagnosis, had ceased medical treatment, failed to cooperate with child protection agencies, and engaged in behaviour raising concerns about the child's safety.

The court found a material change in circumstances under s. 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act and concluded that unsupervised access was no longer in the child's best interests.

The court ordered supervised access at the mother's discretion pending a mental health evaluation, granted a restraining order regarding the child's school and daycare, and imposed restrictions preventing the father from commencing further proceedings without leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior order requiring him to pay $700 per month in spousal support following an 18‑year marriage.

After his employment ended and he entered retirement, his income dropped substantially and he began receiving a pension.

The court found a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and considered the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting that the applicant had already paid support for more than 18 years, which exceeded the guideline duration range for the length of the marriage.

The respondent sought continuation of support and effectively a retroactive variation but had previously failed to pursue her own variation application for many years.

The court held it would be unfair to allow a retroactive claim and found that both parties now had similar incomes, making ongoing support unnecessary.