Wade L. Smith

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking disclosure of medical records, a mental capacity assessment, and other orders under the Substitute Decisions Act relating to the respondent spouse’s alleged incapacity to manage his affairs.

The respondents opposed and cross‑applied for dismissal of claims against adult children and for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that two professional assessments and counsel’s representations established that the respondent spouse was mentally competent to instruct counsel and manage his affairs.

The applicant’s motion was dismissed, the claims against the adult children were struck, and the court ordered partition and sale of the matrimonial home as no prejudice to Family Law Act rights was demonstrated.

Following a family law decision concerning where a child would reside during the school year, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and concluded that the respondent in the main proceeding had been substantially successful on the primary issue.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers and conduct during the litigation and found neither party acted in bad faith, although one offer approached the result obtained at trial.

Considering the parties’ comparable legal fees and financial circumstances, the court determined that fairness required an award of partial costs to the successful party.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of HST.

Following a family law trial involving spousal support, the respondent sought substantial costs on a full recovery basis exceeding $25,000.

The applicant opposed a costs award or proposed a reduced amount.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held the respondent was substantially successful despite a reduction in spousal support and therefore presumptively entitled to costs.

The court rejected full recovery, removed costs for conferences and motions previously addressed by other judges, and considered the parties’ financial circumstances.

A reduced costs award was granted and ordered enforceable as support.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an existing joint custody order after relocating from Ottawa to Halifax for employment and health reasons.

He sought to have the parties' 8-year-old daughter reside with him in Halifax during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed the move, seeking to maintain the child's primary residence in Ottawa.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that while the father's move constituted a material change in circumstances, relocating the child to Halifax would be highly disruptive to her established routines, schooling, and relationships in Ottawa.

The court ordered that joint custody continue, with the child's primary residence remaining with the mother in Ottawa, and granted the father generous holiday parenting time.

The applicant sought to retroactively reduce child support and terminate spousal support after voluntarily leaving long-term employment for lower-paid work and later becoming unemployed.

The court held that the voluntary job change constituted intentional underemployment and imputed income based on the applicant’s prior earnings.

As a result, child support was not reduced and continued based on the imputed income.

Although no material change justified retroactive termination of spousal support, the court conducted a contractual review date analysis and reduced spousal support to encourage the recipient’s partial self‑sufficiency.

Arrears were secured through a transfer of up to one-half of the applicant’s locked‑in retirement account in accordance with the Pension Benefits Act.