Amy Johnson

This is an appeal from a trial decision concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

The appellant father sought to change the shared parenting arrangement, alleging parental alienation, and requested a 90-day "protective separation" for the children to reside solely with him.

The trial judge dismissed this request, finding the existing arrangement to be in the children's best interests, and awarded costs to the mother.

The father appealed the trial decision and the costs award, also seeking to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the trial judge's findings, declined to admit fresh evidence, and refused leave to appeal the costs award, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in parenting disputes and the principle that post-trial events are typically addressed through variation procedures rather than appeal.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a finding that the applicant was in contempt of a September 13, 2023 order by Munroe J., which mandated shared parenting time for their two children.

The applicant acknowledged non-compliance but argued she had made reasonable efforts to ensure the children's attendance.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intentional act or omission breaching a clear order with knowledge.

Despite the children's continued refusal to reside with the respondent, the court found the applicant had undertaken substantial, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to facilitate compliance, including imposing consequences and seeking professional assistance.

The court was left in doubt as to whether the applicant's actions constituted an intentional failure to comply.

Consequently, the motion for contempt was dismissed.

This is a high-conflict family law trial concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for 16-year-old twins.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother and sought a "protective separation" order, granting him sole parenting time and decision-making with no contact between the mother and children for 90-120 days to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The mother sought to continue the existing 50/50 shared parenting and decision-making arrangement.

The court rejected the father's request for "protective separation," finding it extreme and not in the children's best interests, especially given recent positive progress in the children's relationship with the father under the current 50/50 arrangement.

The court found the mother did not engage in parental alienation but erred by allowing the children to dictate parenting time.

The court also found the father's expert witness, a social worker, to be biased and not neutral.

The court ordered the continuation of shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and awarded costs to the mother.

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' 16-month-old child, including overnights and travel to his home in Detroit, Michigan.

The applicant mother opposed the expansion, arguing it would disrupt the child's strict breastfeeding and sleep routine.

The court found that while routine and breastfeeding are important, maximizing the father's parenting time to foster a strong bond and expose the child to his African American heritage was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, including overnights and holiday schedules.

The applicant sought to vary spousal support payable under a 2012 separation agreement, claiming retroactive and prospective increases due to the respondent's significantly higher post-separation income earned in the United States.

The court found a material change in circumstances and increased prospective spousal support to $10,500 CAD per month, calculating the non-resident respondent's income as if he were a Canadian resident.

The court awarded retroactive support back to January 2016, the date of effective notice, but declined to award support back to the date of separation, finding no wrongful conduct by the respondent.

The applicant's claim for security for support was dismissed.