Carol A. Murphy

The applicant and respondent each brought motions for interim custody of their child.

The court considered the child's best interests, the status quo of caregiving, and concerns regarding the applicant's marijuana use and the respondent's alcohol use.

The court found that both parents were substantially involved in the child's care prior to separation.

An interim order was made vacating a previous "without prejudice" order, establishing a shared care and control schedule, with specific weekday care for the applicant and the balance for the respondent, and imposing a no-substance-use condition on both parties during their care of the child.

The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order after the father unilaterally moved to a rural property, significantly increasing the child's travel time to school and extracurricular activities.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While both parents were capable, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in London during the school week to reduce travel time and maintain community ties, with the father having primary care during the summer.

The applicant sought child support for a child born in 2009, with support commencing from the date her application was issued in 2012.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure deficient, determined income for child support purposes for 2012 through 2014, and ordered table child support under the Manitoba Child Support Guidelines together with monthly payments toward arrears.

The court rejected submissions that support should not be payable because the respondent supported another household or because public assistance had been received.

Claims for special or extraordinary expenses under s. 7 and undue hardship under s. 10 of the Guidelines were dismissed for lack of evidence.