W. Shanks

The parties in a high conflict family case brought competing motions for significant relief, including child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and parenting schedules.

The motions were scheduled as short motions limited to one hour.

The court found that the legal and evidentiary issues, which included allegations of family violence and disputed incomes, were too complex to be resolved in a short motion format.

As a result, all motions were dismissed without costs, and the parties were directed to schedule a case conference to properly address the issues.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary exclusive possession of the jointly owned matrimonial home and temporary spousal support.

The parties had been living under the same roof for almost two years post-separation.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence that the husband's alleged behaviour constituted violence under s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act.

The court granted temporary spousal support, ordering the husband to pay $1,500 per month and half of the home's carrying costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary child support from the respondent step-mother.

The parties had signed a separation agreement two years post-separation wherein the applicant acknowledged the respondent had no obligation to support his children.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as her own, and the clear terms of the separation agreement, the court found no prima facie case for temporary relief.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue left for the imminent trial.

The parties were common law spouses who cohabited for 13 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant father sought child support, spousal support, and half the increased value of the respondent mother's pension based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes, finding him underemployed after starting his own business.

The court dismissed the father's claims for spousal support, finding no compensatory or non-compensatory basis, and dismissed his claim for a share of the mother's pension, finding no clear link between his contributions and the pension's growth.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking to vary temporary spousal support from the amount set in the parties' separation agreement, citing a reduction in his income due to disability.

He also sought an order requiring the applicant wife to preserve land claim settlement monies she received pursuant to a prior court order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the preservation request was an improper collateral attack on an unappealed order.

The court also declined to vary the spousal support on a temporary basis, finding the current amount was close to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range and the wife had a monthly deficit.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change, seeking to vary and terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife).

He argued that his income had decreased, her income had increased due to RRSP withdrawals, and she was capable of working.

The responding party argued her health conditions (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome) prevented her from working and her income had not materially changed.

The court found no material change in the moving party's income, noting his business had returned to previous levels and he continued to make maximum RRSP contributions.

The court also declined to impute income to the responding party, finding her health issues prevented employment and her RRSP withdrawals were necessary for expenses.

The motion to change was dismissed.