Barbara Barnett

The applicant father moved for increased parenting time with the parties' two-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the current schedule should remain in place until the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) completed its investigation.

The court noted concerns regarding family violence, including evidence that the applicant had caused a black eye to his older daughter from a previous relationship.

The court dismissed the motion for increased parenting time and adjourned the matter to allow for the completion of the OCL report.

On a motion concerning interim custody and access, the respondent mother sought reconsideration of an earlier interim arrangement that had placed the three eldest children primarily with the moving party father pursuant to a parenting assessment.

Newly disclosed police and Children’s Aid Society records alleged a pattern of domestic violence by the father toward the mother, sometimes in the presence of the children.

The court admitted the police and child protection records under hearsay exceptions and considered them in assessing the children’s best interests under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act.

Finding credible evidence of domestic violence and domineering behaviour that undermined the mother’s role and posed a risk of harm to the children, the court rejected continuation of the existing arrangement.

The mother was granted temporary sole custody with a structured parenting schedule preserving significant contact with the father and safeguards pending investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children, one of whom has Down Syndrome.

The respondent father, who was self-represented, sought joint custody but had a history of sporadic access and poor communication with the mother.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parents' inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The court also imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered child support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses based on that income.

Following a motion concerning a phased access schedule for a young child, both parties sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court noted that its earlier decision reflected partial success for each side and that neither party obtained the relief they sought.

The court reiterated that cost awards are intended to partially indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigation conduct.

In the absence of settlement offers and given the sensitive family law context requiring judicial intervention, the court found neither party was successful.

Accordingly, no costs were awarded.