Virginia G. Ollerhead

The decision addresses interim spousal support and parenting time in the context of a short relationship with one young child.

The court increases interim spousal support to $3,000 per month, declines to order retroactive support, and grants the respondent an additional overnight of parenting time every two weeks, as well as permission to travel with the child to the Akwesasne Reserve in New York without the applicant’s consent.

The court balances the parties’ financial circumstances, the best interests of the child, and the importance of maintaining the child’s connection to her Indigenous heritage.

The parties filed costs submissions following an interim spousal support motion.

The party seeking support sought $15,000 in costs, claiming 68 hours of work at $350 per hour, while the opposing party argued each side should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the party seeking support was the successful party but noted the issues were not complex and the time claimed was disproportionate to the amounts in issue and the parties' financial means.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the costs award at $4,500 inclusive of disbursements.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of access to the parties’ two children after the respondent father unilaterally terminated the existing alternating-week parenting schedule following service of the application for custody and support.

The court found that the prior arrangement, which had operated for approximately 15 months, constituted the status quo and that no compelling reasons had been established to justify altering it.

The father’s unilateral restriction of the mother’s access was found to stem from an erroneous belief that he could control the children’s access and from a reaction to the litigation.

Applying principles from interim custody jurisprudence, the court held that compelling reasons are required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion and that shared parenting should be encouraged where feasible.

Access was therefore reinstated gradually, returning the parties to the previous alternating week schedule.

On an interim motion for spousal support following a 26‑year marriage, the responding spouse sought support at the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive payments, and life insurance security.

The court accepted entitlement to spousal support but addressed quantum by considering the payor’s income, mandatory pension deductions, and financial assistance provided to an adult child.

The court also imputed modest income to the recipient spouse due to a lack of efforts to seek employment following separation.

Applying the SSAG as a guide, the court fixed interim spousal support below the requested mid‑range amount and required life insurance security at a reduced level.

Retroactive support was declined on the interim motion and broader financial disclosure requests were limited as disproportionate.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the respondent’s Answer in a family law proceeding on the basis that they were irrelevant, prejudicial, scandalous, and contrary to the rules of pleading.

The respondent sought leave to file an Amended Answer deleting some impugned paragraphs.

The court emphasized that family law pleadings must still comply with relevance principles despite the emotional nature of such disputes.

Several allegations, including references to pre‑marriage medical events and generalized abuse claims unrelated to relief sought, were struck as irrelevant.

Portions of one paragraph relating to the respondent’s diminished capacity to obtain employment were permitted with amendment because they related to the spousal support issues.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior family law order concerning child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court adjusted child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines based on the father's updated income and ordered payment of limited arrears.

Claims that the father had defaulted on university-related section 7 expenses were largely rejected because the existing order required contributions only after deducting scholarships, employment income, and other resources, which had covered the child’s university costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient spouse’s cohabitation with a new partner and resulting financial improvement.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, and the father was ordered to pay certain spousal support arrears and maintain required life insurance.