Alexandria Brigitte Ogilvie

This is an appeal of an arbitration award that changed the children's school from a private institution to a public one due to financial considerations.

The appellant mother alleged errors of law, fact, mixed fact and law, and procedural unfairness by the arbitrator, including failure to give due weight to the children's views, prioritizing finances over best interests, insufficient reasons, judicial notice errors, misapprehension of evidence, and procedural unfairness regarding financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law, and upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing deference to arbitral awards in family matters and the holistic consideration of the children's best interests within practical and financial constraints.

The applicant brought a motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence and sole decision-making for the children, and supervised parenting time for the respondent.

The court noted highly conflicting and untested affidavit evidence regarding serious allegations of abuse and parenting.

The court ordered a Section 30 assessment to be conducted by a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Pending the assessment, the court ordered temporary-temporary nesting arrangements for the matrimonial home, a specific shared parenting schedule with the children's nanny present during the respondent's time, and general communication rules.

The court declined to make findings on most allegations due to conflicting evidence but noted concerns regarding the respondent's anger management and inappropriate communication about the youngest child, which influenced the temporary parenting plan.

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the respondent mother sought a forensic psychiatric assessment of the father, supervised parenting time, and a restraining order.

The father's motion was adjourned due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed as the court found no reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the children's safety, noting the dated nature of the allegations and lack of recent concerning conduct.

The applicant sought an order to release a transcript of statements made by the respondent during a settlement conference, alleging contradictions with the respondent's sworn statements regarding employment and income.

The respondent opposed, asserting the confidentiality of settlement conferences.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that settlement conferences are confidential to foster open discussion and resolution, as per Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that unsworn statements from a settlement conference are not equivalent to sworn testimony and that the applicant had alternative means to introduce contradictory evidence.

The court reiterated its role as a gatekeeper against disclosure, reserving exceptions for extraordinary circumstances like safety risks, which were not present.