Tracy Ross

The applicant sought relief pertaining to custody, access, child support, health and dental coverage, life insurance, financial disclosure, and a child's name change.

The respondent failed to file responding materials, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the applicant, imputed income to the respondent for child support, ordered shared Section 7 expenses, health and dental coverage, and allowed the child's name change.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a prior order that granted the applicant wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the prior order was made without adequate notice and that he was unable to attend the hearing.

The court found that notice was adequate and, although the husband had a satisfactory reason for missing the hearing, declined to return exclusive possession to him.

The court found the husband lacked the financial stability to maintain the home and had a history of neglecting the property, making it necessary for the wife to retain possession to preserve the asset for sale.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a long marriage.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing both lack of entitlement and inability to pay due to debt and a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the length of the relationship and the parties’ significantly disparate incomes established a prima facie entitlement to interim support on a non‑compensatory basis.

Using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the respondent’s pre‑separation income, the court determined the appropriate interim quantum while noting inconsistencies in the respondent’s evidence about debt obligations and discretionary spending.

On a motion for temporary parenting arrangements and child support following separation, the parties agreed to share custody but disputed the access schedule and support obligations.

The moving party sought primary residence for the young children with structured access to the responding party.

The court considered allegations of alcohol misuse, aggressive communications, and instability raised in affidavit evidence.

Concluding that a 50/50 parenting schedule would not presently serve the children’s best interests, the court ordered temporary primary residence with the moving party and a defined access schedule for the responding party, together with guideline child support.

The applicants sought child support from the respondent parents for E.G., who was 18 years old at the time of trial and had been living with Janet McGonegal since March 2011 when she was 16.

The applicants sought retroactive child support from April 1, 2011, ongoing child support, and coverage of extraordinary expenses for E.G.'s continued education.

The respondents argued that E.G. had voluntarily withdrawn from their parental control at age 16 and therefore were not obligated to provide support under section 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that E.G. had withdrawn from parental control voluntarily and that the withdrawal was not involuntary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child Parker, born January 27, 2011, to the parties who separated in May 2011.

The respondent father sought joint custody with the mother as primary caregiver and regular access.

The parties reached an impasse regarding access: the mother insisted on supervised access while the father demanded unsupervised access.

After 11 months without contact, the mother sought to terminate the father's access rights entirely.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to establish a relationship with his father through a gradual, supervised reintroduction process.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded interim access to the children, including additional overnight periods, a week‑about summer schedule, travel notification requirements for the mother, and specified telephone access.

The court found that the parties had conflicting factual accounts that could not be resolved on motion and that the matter was scheduled for trial within a few months.

The court declined to substantially alter the existing interim custody and access order.

Limited adjustments were made to establish specific summer access dates and structured telephone access to reduce conflict.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.