Tyler Evyn Johnson

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following separation after approximately 28 years of cohabitation and marriage without children.

The applicant had left the matrimonial home and her employment following separation and was receiving employment insurance benefits after prior health issues including cancer treatment.

The respondent conceded entitlement to support but disputed the amount, citing commuting and living expenses.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using updated income figures and considered the parties’ expenses and circumstances.

Interim support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range.

The applicant brought a motion concerning parenting time, child support, and spousal support following separation.

The court ordered an interim shared parenting arrangement with the children residing with each parent on alternate weeks.

The principal financial issue concerned whether annuity payments from a structured settlement arising from a catastrophic personal injury should be treated as income for child support purposes.

The court held that only the portion of the settlement attributable to loss of earning capacity should be included in income and excluded portions intended for future care and personal damages.

Based on this calculation, the respondent’s income for support purposes was set at a reduced amount and child support and interim spousal support were ordered.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required the respondent to pay $3,400 per month.

She argued the respondent had misrepresented his income at a case conference after a T‑4 later showed significantly higher income than initially reported.

The respondent contended that a large portion of the reported income consisted of taxable benefits for room and board while working at a remote Nunavut mining site and did not represent actual cash flow.

The court held that the taxable benefits were necessary to allow the respondent to earn his employment income and did not justify revising the interim support amount.

Finding no material change in circumstances, the court declined to increase the interim support and emphasized that interim motions are summary in nature pending trial.

Following a marriage of approximately 13.5 years, the respondent spouse sought spousal support after the parties resolved custody, access, child support, and equalization.

The respondent argued entitlement on compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, claiming he sacrificed career advancement and assumed caregiving responsibilities while the applicant advanced her career and earned significantly more income.

The court applied s. 15.2(4) and (6) of the Divorce Act and considered leading authorities on spousal support entitlement.

The court found no evidence that the respondent suffered economic disadvantage due to the marriage or its breakdown and concluded he remained economically self‑sufficient.

The respondent’s claim for spousal support was therefore dismissed.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage governed by a marriage contract.

At trial, the court addressed issues including the designation of a pension survivor benefit, division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, claims for rent and depletion of assets, and a claim for spousal support by the respondent.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to declare the pension designation irrevocable.

The court also dismissed the respondent's claim for a priority share of the home sale proceeds, finding that his contribution from previously excluded property lost its excluded character when used to purchase a jointly held asset.

The respondent's claims for asset depletion and spousal support were dismissed, though he was awarded a share of rental income.

The proceeds of the home sale were ordered to be divided equally, subject to minor adjustments.