Todd Jenney

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant's amended application relating to a hardship argument under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, based on the applicant's failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure and other documentation.

The applicant had failed to produce employer letters, court orders from related proceedings, financial statements, Family Responsibility Office statements, and standard of living calculations despite multiple consent orders and judicial directions.

The court found that while striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the applicant's persistent non-compliance with disclosure obligations, particularly those central to his hardship argument, warranted a partial strike.

The court distinguished between the applicant's custody and access claims, which were not struck due to the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the importance of full evidence on child-related issues, and his hardship argument, which was struck with leave to reinstate upon full compliance with disclosure orders.

This interim motion in a family law proceeding addressed issues of custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and employment benefits.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, confirming the existing access schedule.

The respondent's request for Office of the Children’s Lawyer intervention was dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support and retroactive child support based on his 2015 income, and to continue contributing to Montessori school fees (section 7 expenses).

Interim spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient financial information from the applicant and the respondent's limited capacity after other support payments.

The respondent was ordered to maintain the applicant and child on his employment benefits.

The trial addressed three issues: whether an interim sole custody order for the applicant should be made final, whether the respondent's access should be extended to include Thursday nights, and whether child support obligations should be varied if access was increased.

The court found the respondent's evidence unreliable due to past dishonesty regarding alcohol addiction and anger management issues, which significantly impacted his ability to communicate and cooperate.

The court determined that the parties could not effectively communicate without a third party and that joint custody was not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for increased access was denied, partly because it was tied to a desire to reduce child support without a clear plan for the children's well-being.

Consequently, the interim sole custody order for the applicant was made final, and the respondent was ordered to pay child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and for an order removing the applicant father as a joint trustee of the children's RESP.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to sever his claim for divorce.

The court found that the adult child attending university remained a child of the marriage and ordered the applicant to pay child support.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent or include her RRSP withdrawals in her income, and ordered the applicant to pay interim spousal support of $3,000 per month.

The court also invoked its inherent jurisdiction to remove the applicant as a trustee of the RESP due to his failure to cooperate in releasing funds for the child's tuition.

The claim for divorce was severed.

A family law trial addressing child support, section 7 extraordinary expenses, property valuation, and life insurance security following a contentious separation.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent after termination of employment and sought recovery of substantial extracurricular expenses for the children.

The court declined to impute income, finding the respondent was not intentionally underemployed and that his actual income history reflected his earning capacity.

The court limited extraordinary extracurricular expenses to a reasonable amount consistent with the family’s pre‑separation spending pattern and ordered proportional sharing, including orthodontic expenses.

The court also valued disputed household contents, tools, vehicles, and boats for equalization purposes and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance securing child support obligations.