Catherine Haber

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing proposals for an interim parenting schedule for their two young children, aged 22 months and 6 months.

The father sought equal time and immediate overnights for the infant, while the mother sought to reduce the father's time with the older child and delay overnights for the infant.

The court strongly criticized the parents' high-conflict litigation approach.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court maintained the father's existing overnight schedule for the older child and ordered a gradual implementation of overnights for the infant, commencing in February 2025.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions regarding parenting time for their two young children.

The mother sought supervised parenting time or the use of a Soberlink device due to allegations of the father's alcohol abuse, which the father opposed.

The court found sufficient evidence of an alcohol problem to warrant temporary supervised parenting time out of caution.

The court ordered a schedule of alternate weekends and every Tuesday, which was more time than the mother proposed but less than the father sought, with all time to be supervised by a mutually approved person or the paternal grandmother.

Following cross-motions regarding child and spousal support, imputing income, and life insurance, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found divided success on the issue of the applicant's income for support purposes, but noted the respondent was successful in resisting the imputation of income to her and on the life insurance issue.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,085.

Following a 22-day parenting trial and a withdrawn motion for contempt, the successful respondent father sought full recovery of his costs totaling $668,930.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct to be unreasonable, including her misuse of a contempt motion and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $611,637, representing full recovery for the period after his offer to settle and for defending the contempt motion, and a partial recovery for the pre-offer period.

The court declined to order the applicant's counsel to pay the costs personally but granted the applicant leave to bring a motion against her counsel under Rule 24(9).

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order to terminate the respondent father's parenting time and relocate the child to Montreal.

The father sought sole decision-making and an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of high-conflict litigation, terminated the child's therapy, and failed to act in the child's best interests.

Relying on the 13-year-old child's strong views and preferences, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and took the unusual step of leaving parenting time with the mother entirely to the child's discretion.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay child support.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the production of expert business valuation and income reports, and for an order requiring the respondent husband to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support.

The parties had signed a marriage contract in 1991 waiving property and spousal support rights.

The court held that to order cost-prohibitive expert reports, the applicant must show it is more likely than not the contract will be set aside or overridden.

The court dismissed the request for business valuations, finding it equally possible the property provisions would be upheld.

However, the court ordered the production of an income report, finding it likely the spousal support waiver would be overridden under a Miglin analysis.

The request for life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence on insurability, but alternative security was ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached during a settlement conference.

The responding party opposed, arguing there was no meeting of the minds and that enforcing the agreement would be unconscionable due to the subsequent increase in the value of the matrimonial home.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the parties had reached a binding agreement and executed the terms, and there was no evidence of unconscionability or vulnerability during negotiations.

The moving party mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the parties' two children.

The responding party father opposed the motion and sought sole custody.

The court found that the children had resided with the mother since separation and were doing well.

The father, who suffered from significant medical and mental health issues, failed to provide specific evidence or a parenting plan to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding sole custody to the mother.

The respondent father sought costs following several court attendances arising from an unsuccessful urgent motion brought by the applicant mother concerning temporary parenting arrangements for young children.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found the father was entirely successful on the motion, having obtained equal time-sharing while the mother’s request for temporary custody was dismissed.

The court concluded the urgent motion was unjustified and that the mother adopted an unnecessarily confrontational litigation strategy, while the father’s conduct was reasonable and settlement-focused.

Considering success, settlement offers, litigation conduct, and proportionality, the court awarded significant partial indemnity costs but declined to award costs for the case conference.

On a temporary parenting motion following the parties’ separation and imminent sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the respondent.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and opposed any custodial designation at this early stage.

The court emphasized that interim parenting determinations are based on incomplete and untested evidence and should preserve the children’s best interests while avoiding strategic creation of a status quo.

Finding both parents capable and historically involved in caregiving, the court concluded that shared parenting most closely reflected the pre‑separation arrangement.

A temporary equal time‑sharing schedule was ordered to maintain the children’s emotional bonds with both parents pending further proceedings.