Daniel G. Katzman

The applicant father sought a step-down plan for unsupervised parenting time with his son, Jaxson, following allegations of past inappropriate conduct with another minor and his placement on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking fully supervised access at a centre or no access, and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and relying on expert evidence, found the father did not pose a sexual risk to his son.

The court ordered a modified step-down plan for parenting time, contingent on the father's continued counselling, and granted the mother primary residency, deferring the decision-making responsibility issue to trial.

Following an 18-day trial on parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $418,795.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant obtained a result more favourable than her final offer, entitling her to elevated costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent's behaviour and settlement positions unreasonable.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $315,300 plus HST, inclusive of costs for several interim motions.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over parenting time and decision-making responsibility for their two young children.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, while the respondent father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found that the parties had a complete inability to communicate and cooperate, largely due to the respondent's disrespectful and antagonistic behaviour.

The court ordered that the children have their primary residence with the applicant, with the respondent having parenting time on alternating weekends and one evening per week.

The court also ordered a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the applicant decision-making responsibility for education, health, and extracurricular activities, and the respondent decision-making responsibility for spiritual upbringing.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a five-and-a-half-year marriage with three children.

The mother sought a defined parenting schedule and retroactive child support, while the father sought a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that a 50-50 shared parenting schedule was not in the children's best interests as they had thrived in the primary care of their mother, but modified the father's parenting time to be more balanced.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support, finding she had known the father received free room and board but unreasonably delayed in seeking increased support.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that they were required to reimburse the respondents for both the principal and interest on borrowed monies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no reversible error in the credibility assessment that formed the basis of the finding regarding the parties' true intentions.

Although the trial judge erred regarding the admissibility of a letter and the application of the contra proferentem doctrine, these errors were not material to the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.