A. Pazaratz

Following a motion concerning jurisdiction over a family law dispute, the court determined that Alberta retained jurisdiction pursuant to a prior Alberta order and stayed the Ontario proceeding.

The responding party had been successful on the jurisdictional issue, which was the primary and most time‑consuming matter argued.

The moving party obtained limited uncontested relief regarding termination of ongoing child support and payment of arrears, but these matters were resolved quickly and largely on consent.

Applying the principles governing costs in family litigation, including proportionality and reasonableness, the court concluded that the successful party on the principal issue was presumptively entitled to costs.

The applicant society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application seeking a finding that three young children remained in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

The father consented to the requested relief and did not participate further in the proceedings, while the self‑represented mother filed no responding materials and failed to attend the motion.

Evidence established serious concerns including neglect, hazardous home conditions, unexplained physical injuries to a child, missed medical appointments, and the parents’ persistent failure to attend visits or engage with services.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and that the children required stability and permanency.

Summary judgment was granted declaring the children in need of protection, ordering Crown wardship, and denying parental access.

The applicant brought a motion to change in Ontario seeking termination of child support, reduction of arrears, contempt findings, and reimbursement of expenses relating to an Alberta parenting order.

The respondent moved for a declaration that Alberta had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court held that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench retained jurisdiction pursuant to an earlier order expressly reserving jurisdiction over custody, access, and support issues.

Applying jurisdiction and forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum because the child had resided there, the respondent remained there, and most relevant evidence was located there.

The Ontario proceeding was therefore stayed.

Following a 28‑year unmarried relationship with two children, the parties litigated claims relating to child support, spousal support, and alleged unjust enrichment tied to a family‑owned food truck business.

The respondent asserted entitlement to an ownership interest or compensation for unpaid labour, alleging the parties jointly operated a profitable business generating undeclared income.

The court rejected the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant alone purchased the business from her father and that the respondent’s contributions did not enrich the applicant or increase the business’s value.

However, the court accepted evidence that the applicant understated income and imputed annual income of $100,000 for support purposes.

Orders were made for guideline child support, certain section 7 expenses, and a lump‑sum spousal support payment to assist the respondent’s transition to a reduced standard of living.

In a high‑conflict parenting dispute, the applicant mother brought a motion seeking joint custody and equal time-sharing despite prior trial findings awarding the father sole custody and restricting the mother to supervised access due to concerns including abduction risk and persistent litigation misconduct.

The respondent father, who had obtained multiple unpaid costs orders against the mother totaling significant sums, brought a cross‑motion seeking security for costs.

The court reviewed the Family Law Rules and relevant jurisprudence on security for costs in custody and access proceedings, noting that such orders are rare but appropriate in exceptional circumstances.

Given the mother’s history of deception, unpaid costs, repeated litigation without addressing prior court concerns, and low prospects of success, the court required security for costs before further litigation could proceed.

The mother’s motion for joint custody and equal time-sharing was dismissed without prejudice, and any future motion regarding access required the posting of $2,500 as security for costs.

Following a two‑day motion concerning spousal support, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The applicant was successful on key issues including retroactive support and disclosure, and the respondent had failed to provide timely financial and medical disclosure and unilaterally terminated support payments.

Although the applicant argued that her earlier offer to settle triggered full‑recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the offer did not strictly meet the rule’s requirements.

Nevertheless, the offer was found to be a genuine effort to settle and relevant under Rule 18(16).

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, reasonableness of positions, and the respondent’s litigation conduct, the court ordered substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a 2008 final order to terminate his spousal support obligation after he retired for health reasons.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion for a retroactive increase in spousal support, discovering that the husband had obtained new employment shortly after the 2008 order and earned significantly more income than he had disclosed for several years.

The court found that the husband's failure to disclose his increased income constituted a material change in circumstances warranting a retroactive increase.

The court ordered the husband to pay $34,000 in retroactive spousal support.

However, accepting that the husband had validly retired and currently lacked the ability to pay, the court reduced ongoing spousal support to zero effective January 2015.

The responding parent brought a motion to change a prior final support order after one child began residing primarily with that parent while attending university.

The court considered whether previously imputed income to the other parent could be revisited on a temporary motion without evidence of a material change in circumstances.

The court held that where income had been specifically imputed in a prior order, there is a presumption the imputation remains correct unless evidence demonstrates a material change.

As no such evidence was provided, the previously imputed income figure continued to apply for purposes of the temporary variation.

Temporary support was ordered reflecting that each parent had primary care of one child, with the motion to change adjourned for a later oral hearing on a final determination.

The respondent father sought costs following several court attendances arising from an unsuccessful urgent motion brought by the applicant mother concerning temporary parenting arrangements for young children.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found the father was entirely successful on the motion, having obtained equal time-sharing while the mother’s request for temporary custody was dismissed.

The court concluded the urgent motion was unjustified and that the mother adopted an unnecessarily confrontational litigation strategy, while the father’s conduct was reasonable and settlement-focused.

Considering success, settlement offers, litigation conduct, and proportionality, the court awarded significant partial indemnity costs but declined to award costs for the case conference.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The responding mother filed no materials and failed to attend court, while the father had been noted in default.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence including a parenting capacity assessment identifying significant parenting deficits, mental health concerns, instability, and the children’s ongoing special needs.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the best interests criteria under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that no less intrusive disposition could adequately protect the children.

The motion was granted, the children were made Crown wards without parental access, and sibling contact was ordered to continue pending adoption.

On a temporary parenting motion following the parties’ separation and imminent sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the respondent.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and opposed any custodial designation at this early stage.

The court emphasized that interim parenting determinations are based on incomplete and untested evidence and should preserve the children’s best interests while avoiding strategic creation of a status quo.

Finding both parents capable and historically involved in caregiving, the court concluded that shared parenting most closely reflected the pre‑separation arrangement.

A temporary equal time‑sharing schedule was ordered to maintain the children’s emotional bonds with both parents pending further proceedings.

In a family law proceeding where the parties sought to incorporate Minutes of Settlement into a final order, the issue arose whether a police enforcement clause should be included to enforce custody and access provisions.

The court reviewed the statutory authority under s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and extensive jurisprudence concerning police enforcement of parenting orders.

It held that such clauses are a remedy of last resort intended for immediate or specific risks such as unlawful withholding or abduction, not as an open‑ended mechanism for anticipated future non‑compliance.

The court emphasized the potential psychological harm to children and the improper delegation of sensitive parenting disputes to police.

The proposed police enforcement clause was rejected and the remaining terms of the settlement were incorporated into the order.

The applicant brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 seeking spousal support from a former common-law partner residing in Ontario while she resided in British Columbia.

The parties disputed key facts including the duration of the relationship, the date of separation, and whether the applicant suffered economic disadvantage arising from the relationship.

The applicant relied on outdated materials, limited medical evidence, and a Divorcemate calculation but provided little evidence addressing entitlement or the compensatory basis for support.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to establish entitlement, quantum, or duration of spousal support.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new claim with proper evidence.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship with no access for an eight-month-old child.

The parents, who both have profound cognitive delays, opposed the motion and sought to have the child returned to their care or placed with the maternal grandparents.

Relying on a previous parenting capacity assessment and current evidence of the parents' inability to safely care for the child, the court found no genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption.