David Anthony

This decision addresses complex parenting and child support issues between Steven Thomas Skiffington and Christine Lucy Parsons (now MacDougall) concerning their three children.

The court incorporated the parties' agreement on decision-making and regular parenting time, then resolved outstanding disputes on summer parenting schedules, travel arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and potential parenting time changes upon relocation.

The court also determined retroactive child support obligations, including imputation of income due to unreported cash earnings, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The judgment emphasizes the best interests of the children, the impact of family violence, and the necessity of clear, structured parenting terms.

It provides detailed guidance on travel consent, transportation sharing, and arrears repayment, balancing fairness and the parties' financial realities.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator resigned.

The respondents argued that the resignation terminated the arbitration process and the matter should return to court.

The court interpreted the parties' Mediation-Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, finding that a resignation constitutes a termination of the arbitrator's appointment, requiring the appointment of a replacement.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed replacement arbitrator and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to increase his parenting time with the parties' three children to an equally shared schedule.

The respondent mother opposed, advocating for the continuation of the existing alternate weekend schedule.

The court, applying the recently amended Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to allocate parenting time on a "week-about" shared schedule.

The decision emphasized that a status quo unilaterally imposed by one parent is not a strict presumption and gave significant weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and the children's expressed wishes.

The applicant brought a contempt motion to enforce a final order regarding the return of household possessions.

The applicant had hired private investigators to surreptitiously enter the respondent's home under false pretenses to take photographs and videos of the items.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and should not be used as a first step for enforcement.

The court also noted it would have declined to exercise its discretion to grant contempt due to the applicant's unacceptable conduct in using private investigators.

Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant's counsel for failing to comply with principles of civility and professionalism by unilaterally scheduling the motion and refusing reasonable adjournment requests.

This is a costs ruling following a trial where the respondent was entirely successful.

The applicant, who was self-represented, failed to provide costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings to be unreasonable, including denying access to the parties' child without cause, making unreasonable demands in her draft order, and ignoring court orders.

The respondent, conversely, acted reasonably and made two offers to settle that were more favorable than the final trial order.

Despite the applicant's self-representation, her unreasonable behaviour necessitated the trial and warranted a costs award.

The respondent was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict trial over the custody of their three-year-old son.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought the same, alleging the mother was manipulative, alienated the children from their fathers, and fabricated criminal assault charges against him.

The court found the mother lacked credibility, repeatedly breached court orders, and acted contrary to the child's best interests.

Relying on evidence from the mother's own family members and the father of her older child, including surreptitiously recorded conversations, the court awarded sole custody to the father and granted the mother specified access.

At a Trial Management Conference for custody and access issues, the self-represented applicant attempted to include financial issues in her brief.

The court noted that the applicant's claims regarding financial issues had been previously struck and she was prohibited from participating in the trial on those issues.

The court struck the irrelevant materials from her brief, set the witness lists and time estimates for the custody and access trial, and provided procedural directions for filing the trial record and form 35.1.

At a Trial Management Conference, the court provided directions for an uncontested trial on financial issues following the striking of the applicant's pleadings.

The respondent was ordered to file a trial record, including an affidavit for the uncontested trial, and the trial was scheduled for February 2017.

The applicant was permitted to attend but prohibited from participating.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion to cancel a matrimonial designation on his property and to terminate temporary spousal support, after the responding party's pleadings on financial issues were struck.

The court granted the cancellation of the matrimonial designation.

The court declined to terminate spousal support entirely but varied the temporary order, reducing it from $4,000 to $1,800 per month, noting the short cohabitation, the responding party's lack of effort to become self-sufficient, and the moving party's significant prior payments.

The court addressed competing motions regarding custody, access, and parenting arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent sought to continue joint custody with primary residence, while the applicant sought modifications to access arrangements and proposed mediation for dispute resolution.

The court maintained the existing joint custody arrangement with the respondent retaining primary residence, established specific weekend and weekday access schedules for the applicant, imposed a 20-kilometre relocation restriction on the respondent, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The court declined the applicant's proposals for mediation and additional access on the respondent's weekends, finding the existing arrangements to be in the child's best interests.