Theresa Van Luven

The Applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation, while the Respondent requested its continuation and increase.

The court treated the matter as an originating application under the Divorce Act, upholding the parties' separation agreement as valid and enforceable.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments that post-separation income increases and the Respondent's repartnering should negate his support obligation.

It emphasized the strong compensatory nature of support in a long-term marriage, the Respondent's contributions to the Applicant's career, and the need to consider post-separation income, including a portion of a pension lump sum payout, applying principles from Boston and Halliwell.

The court ordered spousal support to continue at an increased amount and included a provision for life insurance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 consent Corollary Relief Order regarding section 7 expenses, and the respondent father sought changes to spousal support and access.

The court formalized the parties' practice of five weeks of summer access for the father.

The mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses for 2015 and 2016 was dismissed due to her delay in seeking the variation and the father's lack of blameworthy conduct.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to both parties' increased incomes, the court reduced the father's spousal support obligation from $1,000 to $800 per month.

The applicant bankrupt brought a motion arguing that a previous family law costs award of $25,280, which was ordered to survive bankruptcy, was released because the respondent creditor failed to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The court held that while the failure to file a proof of claim prevented the respondent from sharing in the bankruptcy distribution, it did not release the debt under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The costs order survived the bankruptcy discharge, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion.

In a shared custody arrangement, the parents could not agree on which elementary school their young child should attend.

The court was asked to determine this specific incident of custody under the Children's Law Reform Act based on the child's best interests.

The court assessed factors including stability, proximity to the parents' homes, family supports, daycare connections, transportation considerations, school programming, and the availability of French Immersion.

Although both schools could meet the child’s needs, the court found stronger evidence regarding the programming and opportunities at the school proposed by the father, including the availability of early French Immersion.

The balance of the evidence favoured that option.