Christopher Hiebert

Both parents brought competing motions regarding the father's parenting time with their three children.

The mother had unilaterally suspended the father's unsupervised parenting time after allegations that he interrogated the children about the mother's activities and made inappropriate racial, religious, and gender-biased comments.

The court found some merit to the allegations based on evidence from multiple sources including a children's counsellor, supervised visit notes, and a children's aid investigation, but held that the mother was not justified in unilaterally suspending court-ordered parenting time absent immediate danger to the children.

The court restored unsupervised parenting time under the existing order, denied the mother's request for supervised access, ordered the father to enroll in the Caring Dads program, and denied make-up parenting time.

Following a family law trial, the court issued an endorsement to resolve issues raised in written submissions regarding the calculation of child support and costs.

The court determined the appropriate formula for calculating support when one child is entitled to 100 percent of the Guidelines amount and another to 25 percent.

The court dismissed the respondent's requests for further credits towards education expenses.

As the successful party whose offer to settle was close to the final judgment, the applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,000.

This case involved cross-motions to change a final order concerning child support and Section 7 special and extraordinary expenses for the parties' two children.

The court determined the respondent's income and imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.

It then calculated the parties' proportionate shares for the children's post-secondary education expenses, including the children's expected contributions and the treatment of personal expenses.

The decision also addressed the respondent's obligation to pay monthly child support, specifically for a child's "gap year" and for a child attending school away from home, providing detailed directions for retroactive calculation.

The respondent's request to terminate education expense obligations after four years post-high school was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order for custody of the parties' two children, proposing limited access for the respondent father.

The mother raised concerns regarding the father's mental health and parenting style.

The court found the father's mental health was well-managed and the mother's parenting concerns were minor.

The court ordered a temporary parenting schedule that provided the father with significant overnight parenting time, noting that it was in the children's best interests to maximize time with both parents.