Steven Lubczuk

Following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule and school enrollment, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $21,425.93.

The respondent opposed, citing limited ability to pay and arguing the costs were excessive.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and behaved reasonably, while the respondent's position was unreasonable.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $14,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $400.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally removed the children from the matrimonial home.

On an interim motion, the father sought to change the parenting schedule from 2-2-3 to 2-2-5-5 and to have the eldest child attend school in his catchment area, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The mother opposed the changes and sought to have the child attend school in her catchment area.

The court granted the father's requests, finding that the 2-2-5-5 schedule would reduce conflict through fewer exchanges, and that the mother's unilateral actions and alienating behaviour made the father's proposed school the better choice for the child's stability.

The parties cohabited for eight years.

At trial, the applicant was awarded time-limited spousal support and a $100,000 equitable trust interest in the respondent's home.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal varied the spousal support to an indeterminate duration, noting the applicant's age and disability.

The Court upheld the $100,000 trust interest, rejecting the applicant's new argument for a joint family venture, but granted pre-judgment interest and a charge on the property as security.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding support quantum, costs, and financial reconciliation was dismissed.

During family law proceedings, the responding party brought an oral motion seeking directions regarding outstanding undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement arising from questioning under oath.

The court considered thirteen disputed requests for production and further questioning.

Several requests were denied where no undertaking had been given, where the documents were not in the moving party’s control, or where the request was overly broad or irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

Limited additional disclosure was ordered for certain financial documents, including bank statements and credit accounts, and in one instance the responding party was directed to request documents from a government ministry.

The court also permitted limited re‑attendance for further questioning in relation to some ordered disclosures.