Alice Van Deven

The applicant sought to expand and liberalize parenting time with the younger child (H.) due to the respondent's repeated non-compliance with previous orders and his failure to attend trial.

The respondent opposed, citing the applicant's substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's willful withholding of the child.

The court granted expanded, unsupervised parenting time to the applicant, consistent with the child's wishes, and removed the father's supervision obligation.

The court declined to include anticipatory contempt penalties or a police assistance order in the final order, stating that new violations would require new contempt findings, but granted leave for an urgent ex parte police assistance motion if future non-compliance occurs.

The respondent sought costs of an appeal that was dismissed.

The court noted a presumption in r. 24(1) that the successful party is entitled to costs.

However, due to delays caused by both parties' behaviour, the court concluded that neither party was successful in the context of the appeal's outcome and underlying issues.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The appellant father appealed a Hague Convention decision that dismissed his application for the return of his child to Peru, despite the child being wrongfully removed.

The application judge had applied the grave risk exception (Article 13(b)) after a protracted 33-day hearing.

The Court of Appeal found the lower court's process led to unacceptable delay and contained analytical gaps, particularly regarding the Peruvian court's findings and the uncritical adoption of the mother's evidence.

While dismissing the appeal due to the child's estrangement and the passage of time, the Court ordered an expedited assessment and appointment of the Children's Lawyer for the ongoing parenting application, and requested case management by a single judge.

Following an interim custody proceeding where the applicant father was successful in obtaining an order for equal shared parenting, he sought costs of $28,421.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parents had litigated in good faith out of genuine love for their children.

The court held that imposing a costs award against the respondent mother would negatively impact her financial ability to maintain the shared parenting arrangement, which would ultimately harm the children.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

In an interim custody dispute, the applicant father sought shared joint custody or sole custody with equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with limited access.

The court found the mother's affidavit evidence less reliable due to audio recordings revealing her verbal and physical abuse.

The court declined to make an interim custody order but established a temporary week-about (equal) residence schedule for the children, emphasizing the Divorce Act's principle of maximum contact with both parents and the children's best interests.

Supplemental orders were issued to facilitate the parenting arrangement and minimize conflict.