David Grant Isaac

The parties separated after a 12.5-year marriage.

The applicant father sought shared parenting, sole decision-making responsibility, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, exclusive possession of the home, and various financial claims.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility due to the respondent's alienating conduct.

The court ordered an equal shared parenting schedule.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including equalization of net family properties, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and retrospective and prospective child and spousal support.

The applicant was ordered to pay a net amount of $3,100 to the respondent after offsetting all financial claims.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for various interim relief.

The mother sought to vary an interim access order, compel the father to undergo a medical examination for alcoholism, and obtain a restraining order.

The father sought to amend his application to claim partition and sale of the matrimonial home, an immediate order for its sale, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed the mother's requests to vary access and compel a medical exam due to insufficient evidence, but ordered the parties to communicate via a co-parenting app.

The court granted the father leave to amend his application to claim partition and sale, but adjourned the motion for sale to allow the mother time to determine if she could purchase his interest.

The court also made orders regarding life insurance, preservation of specific assets, and ongoing expenses.

The moving defendants sought to strike the amended statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action arising from disciplinary proceedings and a trusteeship order involving the professional practice of a lawyer and sought extensive damages against the regulator, its employees, and media defendants.

The court held the pleading was rambling, vexatious, and failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

Claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and derivative Family Law Act damages were inadequately pleaded or legally barred.

The court further found the claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on prior disciplinary and court decisions and were barred by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act.