Tyler Evyn Johnson

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.