Cheryl Lean

Following an 11-day trial regarding parenting arrangements, the successful applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent argued for a nominal award of $2,000 due to his limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and the respondent's conduct unreasonably lengthened the trial.

Despite the applicant's full indemnity costs approaching $90,000, the court accepted her request for $10,000 as appropriate given the respondent's limited means.

The court also ordered that the respondent cannot initiate new proceedings without leave if he defaults on the first $2,000 installment.

The applicant mother sought a final order for decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father failed to file an Answer or appear, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering the history of family violence, the father's substance abuse, and the mother's role as primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered supervised parenting time for the father.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and restricted parenting time for the father, citing a history of family violence and the father's untreated mental health issues.

The father sought joint or parallel decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights.

The court applied the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the father had perpetrated significant family violence and struggled with emotional regulation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered that the father's parenting time remain restricted to daytime visits until he obtains a psychiatric assessment and demonstrates sustained compliance with a mental health treatment plan.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother breached a divorce order requiring the parties’ children to reside on an alternating weekly basis with each parent.

The mother brought a motion to change the custody provisions, asserting the shared parenting arrangement was no longer workable and that the children experienced stress and conflict under the schedule.

The court held that contempt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not show the mother intentionally breached the order; the older child had independently refused to continue the arrangement.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the children’s consistent preferences and the ongoing parental conflict.

The order was varied to maintain joint custody with primary residence with the mother and flexible access to the father consistent with the children’s wishes.