Caroline Kelly

The applicant sought to correct a previous consent order regarding the division of the respondent's pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, specifically concerning the accrual of interest.

The applicant argued for 2% compound interest, citing a mistake in the original order which omitted the agreed-upon interest rate from settlement offers.

The court, applying principles of contract law and rectification, found that the parties had indeed agreed to 2% simple interest, not compound, and ordered the amendment of the original order to reflect 2% simple interest from the date of separation.

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, arguing that equal division would be unconscionable because he brought the fully-owned matrimonial home into the short marriage.

The court valued several disputed assets, including a bush lot and a contingent interest in property.

The court concluded that full equalization would be unconscionable given the short marriage and the disparity in pre-marriage assets, ordering the applicant to pay 80% of the calculated equalization amount.

The applicant brought a motion to freeze funds removed from a joint investment account and for an accounting.

The respondent had transferred the entire joint account, derived from the sale of his farm, to his sole control.

The applicant argued the funds were joint property, while the respondent claimed they were for estate planning and his sole income source.

The court, applying Section 14 of the Family Law Act, found that while some control was necessary, the applicant's request for a full freeze was overreaching.

A preservation order was issued for one half the account's value at separation, with conditions proposed by the respondent, reflecting the historical pattern of usage.

Costs were fixed in the cause.

This decision addresses the terms of a father's access to his two young children following separation, with a separate decision to follow on property and equalization issues.

The court considered two OCL reports, which highlighted parental rigidity and the need for a gradual increase in the father's access, coupled with specific safety measures at his home.

The court established a detailed, staged access schedule for the father, gradually increasing overnight access for both children, and imposed conditions on the father regarding home safety (gating wood stoves, car seat inspection, proper sleeping arrangements) and communication.

The court criticized the mother for unduly limiting access and encouraging a child's dependency, and the father for his stubbornness in addressing safety recommendations.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning the appropriate school for the parties’ child, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $234,000 based on offers to settle and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other party.

The court confirmed the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs but emphasized that the quantum must remain fair and reasonable in light of the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issue, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found both parties acted reasonably and rejected claims for full recovery, significantly reducing counsel’s hourly rates and the hours claimed.

Applying the reasonableness principle and considering Rule 24 factors, the court fixed fees at $73,964.15 plus disbursements.

A total costs award of $78,028.03 was ordered, payable in monthly instalments.