David Page

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a short relationship with two children.

The father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and rescission of child support arrears.

The mother sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and a police enforcement clause due to the father's history of overholding the children.

The court ordered joint custody but granted the mother final decision-making authority and primary residence, with the father having parenting time three weekends per month.

The court ordered child support based on the father's imputed and actual income, rescinded arrears only for a brief reconciliation period, found the mother entitled to spousal support at a quantum of zero, and granted the police enforcement clause.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a one-year-old child, seeking placement with a kin caregiver.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return subject to a supervision order.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the father's domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and the mother's inability to protect the child.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child given the parents' history of non-cooperation with the society and failure to engage in recommended services.

The child was ordered to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the kin caregiver, with specified access for the parents.

This endorsement addresses costs following a trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of his offer to settle and partial indemnity prior, totaling $30,046.00.

The Respondent requested a deduction for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses ($7,424.27) and claimed financial hardship.

The court found the Applicant substantially successful and that the trial outcome was as favorable as or more favorable than his offer to settle.

The court fixed costs payable by the Respondent to the Applicant at $20,000.00, from which the $7,424.27 owed to the Respondent was deducted, resulting in a net payment of $12,575.73 to the Applicant.

The applicant father sought to clarify joint custody and specify access for the child, Gunner, and alternatively, sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate with Gunner to British Columbia, minimal access for the father, retroactive child and spousal support, Section 7 expenses adjustments, a restraining order, and a police enforcement clause.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's inability to exercise joint custody and the mother's new relationship and relocation plan.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximizing contact with both parents and extended family.

Joint custody was maintained, with clarified access provisions for the father.

The court also ordered retroactive child support for a specific period and denied the mother's requests for a restraining order and police enforcement clause.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for temporary care and custody of three children with their respective fathers, following a warrantless apprehension due to the mother's breach of a previous supervision order (pets in home) and non-cooperation with a child protection worker.

The mother sought the children's return.

The court found the mother not credible, upheld the warrantless apprehension as justified due to her non-cooperation and the prior deplorable state of the home, and determined that the risk to the children in the mother's care outweighed the emotional harm of separation.

The motion for temporary care and custody with the fathers was granted.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order for the return of three children to their mother's care, subject to supervision and conditions, after apprehending them due to deplorable living conditions and neglect.

The mother supported this, while the fathers of two children opposed, seeking continued placement with them or foster care.

The court found a significant risk of harm but determined that the proposed supervision order, with amendments including the permanent removal of pets and mandatory program completion, was sufficient to mitigate the risk, emphasizing the least intrusive course of action.