Trevor Hudson Adrian Kestle

The court considered an uncontested family law application by Joanne Polack for equalization of net family property and spousal support against Peter Denis Larabie.

The respondent’s answer was struck for failure to comply with disclosure orders, and the trial proceeded in his absence.

The court reviewed the parties’ long-term relationship, financial history, and the respondent’s repeated non-compliance with disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, and costs, with payment to be made from funds held in trust and, if necessary, from the respondent’s pension or LIRA.

The court also ordered further financial disclosure from the respondent and set out consequences for non-compliance.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a prior order striking his pleadings and to release his share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the respondent's motion.

The court, applying principles that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy, found that the respondent's partial compliance with undertakings and the importance of maintaining the adversarial process in family law warranted setting aside the order, albeit with conditions for full disclosure.

The court also ordered the release of a portion of the respondent's funds held in trust, determining there were sufficient remaining funds to cover potential equalization payments.

The matter was adjourned for further proceedings and compliance review.

The applicant sought an interim order for sole decision-making, reduced parenting time for the respondent, and child support.

The respondent opposed the changes, arguing the existing 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, in place for three years, was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the long-standing status quo was working well for the children, who were thriving academically and showed no negative impact from past parental conflicts.

The court also dismissed the child support claim without prejudice, noting insufficient submissions on the increased costs of shared parenting under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant father sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' seven-year-old child, alleging the respondent mother was engaging in parental alienation and failing to ensure the child attended school.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo of joint custody with primary residence to her, arguing the child suffered from separation anxiety and struggled with the father's new family dynamics.

The court dismissed the father's contempt motions and request for sole custody, finding that while the mother needed to improve her parenting assertiveness, a dramatic change in primary residence was not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, implemented a structured access schedule, and ordered the father to pay $864 per month in child support.

John David Wickie brought a motion seeking an order to refrain the Family Responsibility Office (F.R.O.) from suspending his driver's license due to $94,801 in support arrears.

The motion was dismissed because it was not properly before the court, as Mr. Wickie failed to serve and file a Financial Statement and proof of income as required by the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act and the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to overlook these procedural shortcomings, noting no compelling evidence of inequity.

Additionally, Mr. Wickie failed to establish a prima facie case for his related Motion to Change a Final Order, having not filed responding material in the original application, voluntarily left employment without disclosing reasons, and provided no evidence of seeking new employment.

Costs of $250 were awarded against Mr. Wickie.

The parties brought cross-motions to change interim custody and access orders regarding their four-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought to relocate with the child to North Bay or New Liskeard for employment and enroll him in junior kindergarten, while the applicant father sought to have the child reside primarily with him in Sudbury.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that the mother's employment opportunities and the child's need to start school constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court held it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the mother and relocate to North Bay, where she had family support and employment.

The father was granted significant access and a reduction in child support to offset travel costs.