Athena Cassandra McBean

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The applicant, Shantee Grant, sought orders appointing her as guardian of property and guardian of the person for her grandmother, Dorothy May Robinson, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer's dementia and schizophrenia.

The court found Mrs. Robinson incapable of managing her property and personal care.

It was determined that Mrs. Robinson's previously appointed Attorney for Property had neglected his duties, and her sister, acting as substitute decision-maker for personal care, made decisions not in Mrs. Robinson's best interests.

The court found no less restrictive alternative courses of action.

Consequently, the applicant was appointed as guardian for both property and personal care, and the existing Power of Attorney for Property was terminated.

Costs were awarded to the applicant and the Public Guardian and Trustee, payable from Mrs. Robinson's estate.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter concerning spousal support.

The respondent wife sought full recovery costs of $38,642.47, while the appellant husband sought partial costs of $16,264.29.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was largely successful on the contested issues on appeal, particularly in resisting the appellant's argument that the application judge erred in awarding spousal support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed a lump sum spousal support award of $143,280 (adjusted for tax) granted to the respondent wife following a 22-year marriage.

The husband challenged the award on two grounds: (1) that compensatory support was inappropriate because the wife's career prospects were not diminished by the marriage, and (2) that the application judge failed to account for the impact of their adult son residing with the husband when calculating the support amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly considered both economic disadvantage flowing from the marriage and from its breakdown.

The court upheld the compensatory support award but varied the order to properly adjust the lump sum amount for tax consequences, reducing it to $106,539.52 ($14,840.32 retroactive plus $91,699.20 prospective), and made ancillary variations regarding life insurance designation, financial disclosure requirements, and post-judgment interest.