Alison Campbell

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding the school registration of the parties' child, which was dismissed.

The respondent mother subsequently sought costs of $8,460.16 for both the urgency and substantive motions.

The court found that the applicant's initial response to the school registration decision, which included threats of litigation and allegations of fraud, constituted unreasonable behaviour.

The court awarded the respondent her costs for both motions, fixing the quantum at $7,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after deducting clerical work and costs related to preparing the costs submissions.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order based on a newly released parenting assessment.

The assessment concluded there was a significant risk of ongoing harm to the children due to the father's alienating behaviours and exposure to parental conflict.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of severe emotional harm if the current arrangements continued.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother, the father's parenting time be supervised, and the family immediately commence reunification therapy.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order to change the children's primary residence to his home, or alternatively for shared parenting.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and order reunification counselling, alleging parental alienation.

The court found no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim order, noting the conflicting evidence and the ongoing involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

Both motions were dismissed without prejudice, pending the release of a parenting assessment and CAS report.

The applicant brought an application for equalization of property and spousal support.

The respondent argued that a cohabitation agreement signed prior to their marriage barred her claims.

The court held a bifurcated trial to determine the validity, enforceability, and content of the agreement.

The court found that there was adequate financial disclosure and no duress when the agreement was signed.

However, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent had torn up the agreement shortly after they moved into their new home, intending to terminate it.

Consequently, the court ruled that the agreement was no longer in effect and did not bind the parties at the date of separation.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $9,154.48 following a successful urgent motion regarding a parenting schedule and custody assessment.

The respondent opposed the costs and sought her own costs, arguing the applicant acted unreasonably by bringing the matter to court instead of arbitration.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to comply with arbitration awards and the final parenting plan.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $7,000, making a small reduction from full indemnity as no formal offer to settle was made and the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for an interim order enforcing the parenting schedule set out in the parties' separation agreement, after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the children.

The mother argued the children wished to change the equal residential schedule.

The court held that a parent cannot unilaterally change a parenting schedule in the face of an existing agreement, and ordered that the separation agreement's terms govern on an interim basis.

The court also ordered a section 30 custody and access assessment, counselling for the children, and that neither parent attend the children's school during the other's parenting time.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and other ancillary relief following a high‑conflict separation involving allegations related to parental mental health and domestic conflict.

The court considered conflicting affidavit evidence, a report from the Children’s Aid Society confirming emotional risk to the children from exposure to parental conflict, and the respondent’s mental health treatment.

Emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for stability, the court granted the applicant interim sole custody and interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent received structured access several times per week.

The court declined to issue a restraining order and ordered each party to bear their own costs.