Zane Richard Handysides

This judgment addresses the entitlement, quantum, and duration of spousal support, calculation of retroactive support, and child support following a divorce.

The court found the applicant wife entitled to non-compensatory spousal support due to income disparity, but not a strong compensatory claim.

Spousal support was set at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered to terminate on September 30, 2024, considering the applicant's re-partnering and efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Retroactive child and spousal support were fixed, with a tax adjustment applied to the lump-sum spousal support.

Despite the respondent husband being the more successful party on the merits, no costs were awarded due to his deliberate non-compliance with an interim support order.

The applicant father sought primary care, sole decision-making, and spousal support, opposing the respondent mother's request to relocate with their child from Windsor, Ontario, to Grapevine, Texas.

The respondent mother sought leave to relocate with the child, sole decision-making, and child support (offset by travel expenses).

The court dismissed the father's spousal support claim and granted the mother's request to relocate with the child to Texas, awarding her sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found the relocation to be in the child's best interests, considering the mother's primary caregiver role, her ability to meet the child's educational and developmental needs, and the father's inability to cooperate and make child-focused decisions.

Child support obligations for the father were suspended to offset travel expenses.

The applicant, Shelley Jacob, brought a motion to vary spousal and child support orders from a 2010 consent order.

The court found that the child of the marriage ceased to be self-supporting as of June 2014, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The court increased spousal support retroactively and on a go-forward basis, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the tax implications of retroactive support.

Child support was terminated retroactively.

The respondent was also ordered to transfer ownership of a term life insurance policy and designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of his group life insurance.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the children from Essex County to Thunder Bay for a new job opportunity, which would significantly improve her financial situation and the children's lives.

The respondent father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in Essex County.

The court, applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's job loss.

It determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, considering the mother's financial stability, the lack of alternative employment, and the proposed access schedule which maintained the father's overnight access.

The applicant's motion was allowed, and the respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

Motion to change a custody and access order dated November 22, 2012.

The applicant sought to change the access pick-up location, retain a psychologist to facilitate access, and modify the child support arrangement and overpayment repayment schedule.

The respondent sought appointment of the Children's Lawyer for a section 112 investigation and requested the applicant designate the respondent as beneficiary on a life insurance policy in trust for the child.

The court approved retention of a psychologist for open intervention to assess the child's views regarding access, dismissed the Children's Lawyer appointment request, deferred the pick-up location change pending the psychologist's report, modified the child support amount based on changed income circumstances, and established a repayment schedule for the overpaid child support.

The court dismissed the life insurance beneficiary designation request as exceeding its jurisdiction.

Following two family law trials concerning custody and access of three children, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court had previously found the mother in contempt of an access order and concluded that she acted in bad faith by emotionally manipulating the children and undermining their relationship with their father.

The father was successful at both the original trial and the subsequent review.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the mother’s bad faith litigation conduct, the court ordered full recovery costs.

The mother was required to pay a substantial costs award reflecting extensive legal work and professional involvement necessitated by the litigation.