Bonnie Ann Caplan-Stroeder

The respondent father sought an order deeming or converting his response to the applicant mother's motion to change into a proper application for equal parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed the conversion and brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's custody claims.

The court found that while it had authority under the Family Law Rules to convert or deem pleadings, the criteria for exercising such discretion had not been met because the pleadings were incomplete and would require amendment, thereby creating additional costs, delay, and procedural complexity.

The court denied the conversion request, which resulted in no claims being properly before the court, and therefore dismissed all related motions.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to rescind or terminate child support arrears and avoid ongoing child support obligations, claiming he was unable to work due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to have income imputed to the father for child support purposes.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed despite having education, skills, and no clear medical evidence of total incapacity.

The court determined there was a material change in circumstances due to the father's continued unemployment and lack of rehabilitation efforts.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father and ordered him to pay child support retroactively from January 1, 2014, while maintaining the existing arrears fixed at the date of the prior order.

The father brought a motion to change seeking to rescind child support arrears, claiming he was unable to work due to medical issues following a motor vehicle accident.

The mother opposed and sought to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally unemployed.

The court found the father's medical evidence insufficient to prove he was unemployable and determined he was intentionally unemployed.

The court refused to rescind the arrears, finding the father's conduct blameworthy, and imputed a minimum wage income to him, ordering ongoing child support based on that amount.

A costs application arising from a motion concerning supervised access to children.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion that resulted in an order for supervised access to the respondent father.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and that his financial circumstances should preclude or substantially reduce any award.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant, finding the respondent's behaviour was unreasonable and inflammatory, though the award was moderated to account for the respondent's limited financial means and the need to ensure enforceability.

The court addressed whether it was functus (without jurisdiction) to reconsider a costs ruling made on March 11, 2013, after the respondent's counsel's written submissions on costs were inadvertently sent to an incorrect fax number and not received by the court prior to the ruling.

The court determined it was not functus and that it was in the interests of justice and procedural fairness to reconsider the respondent's materials and revisit the costs ruling.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent father's access to the children or, alternatively, to impose supervised access.

The father opposed both requests.

The court found that while the threshold for complete suspension of access had not been met, supervised access was warranted on a temporary basis.

The father had demonstrated problematic and inappropriate behaviour over a significant period, including denigrating the mother, making accusations of practicing "black magic" and showing a lack of insight into the impact of his conduct on the children.

The court ordered supervised access for two hours per week at a supervised access facility, conditioned on the father's enrollment in parenting and spousal abuse programs.