Arnold Schwartz

The father, who previously had primary custody of the children, was charged with sexual offences, leading to a temporary order placing the children with the mother.

Following his acquittal, the father brought a motion to reinstate the previous final parenting order.

The mother opposed, citing the 13-year-old child's preference to remain with her and attend a specific high school.

The court found the acquittal constituted a material change in circumstances and that the child's views and preferences were not sufficiently strong or independent to override the historical status quo.

The court reinstated the final order granting the father primary custody and decision-making responsibility.

Laura and Reynold, former cohabitants for 24 years, separated in 2009.

Laura sought retroactive child support adjustments, spousal support commencing July 2016, and a CPP split.

Reynold denied the claims, sought imputation of income to Laura for underemployment, and repayment of alleged overpaid support.

The court found Laura entitled to indefinite spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, rejecting Reynold's claims of inability to pay due to new family obligations.

The court imputed income to Laura for unreasonably deducted real estate expenses for spousal support calculation but found her not intentionally underemployed.

The claim for retroactive child support adjustment was dismissed as largely resolved, and the CPP split claim was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction without consent.

Reynold was ordered to designate Laura as beneficiary of his life insurance to secure spousal support.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent breached a prior parenting order requiring both parents to consult regarding their child’s medical care.

The evidence established that the respondent unilaterally took the child to medical professionals without consulting the applicant despite clear terms requiring consultation and knowledge of the order.

The court held that civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a party deliberately and wilfully breached a clear court order.

The respondent’s conduct met this threshold.

The court found the respondent in contempt but imposed no fine or custodial sanction, instead directing compliance with the existing order.