David Sinclair

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The mother sought sole decision-making, retroactive child support, and orders regarding passports and photographs.

The father sought equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court declined to make an interim order for decision-making or to change the parenting schedule, finding insufficient evidence of parental alienation at the interim stage.

The court ordered the father to sign passport renewals and return certain photographs, while leaving the issue of retroactive child support to the trial judge.

The court determined costs following an urgent motion regarding child access.

The respondent sought $8,000 in costs, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found that the respondent was more successful overall, as the access order largely mirrored her proposal, but reduced her costs due to her unreasonable insistence on a voluntary service agreement as a precondition to access and her disproportionate legal fees.

The respondent was awarded $2,000 in costs.

The Applicant, Mr. A., brought an urgent motion seeking interim access to the parties' three children.

The Respondent, Ms. L., opposed the equal time-sharing request, advocating for alternate weekend access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) and police were investigating allegations of abuse against Mr. A. The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, found Ms. L. to be the primary caregiver prior to separation and her evidence regarding abuse allegations more credible.

The motion for equal time-sharing was dismissed, and Mr. A. was granted supervised access on alternate weekends pending completion of investigations.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully defended the validity of the parties' marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $55,371.53 on a full recovery basis due to an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant argued financial hardship.

The court found the respondent was entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules but exercised its discretion to fix costs at a fair and reasonable amount of $40,000, payable from the applicant's share of joint property proceeds.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a 2005 marriage contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, inadequate legal advice, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found that the respondent wife did not fail to disclose her interest in a family trust because neither party knew of its existence at the time.

The court also found that the applicant received adequate independent legal advice, understood the contract, and was not subjected to duress or undue influence.

The application to set aside the marriage contract was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary child support under a separation agreement after discovering the respondent mother’s income had been significantly understated when the agreement was executed.

The court addressed income determination under ss. 16 and 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including the appropriateness of three‑year income averaging where income fluctuates.

The court also considered imputing income under s. 19, finding the father intentionally under‑employed and imputing income of $50,000 to him.

Applying the shared parenting analysis under s. 9 of the Guidelines and the framework from Contino v. Leonelli‑Contino, the court assessed budgets, income disparity, and standards of living between households.

The respondent’s income for 2010–2011 was calculated using three‑year averaging and her 2012 income was based on actual income, with adjustments for non‑deductible legal expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $4,000 monthly child support retroactive to 2010 and proportionate s. 7 expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

Multiple court orders had required financial disclosure and the retention of a business valuator, including a consent order providing that the respondent’s pleadings would be struck upon non‑compliance.

The respondent admitted failing to meet the timelines and only attempted partial compliance after being served with the motion.

The court held that the respondent’s conduct constituted persistent and deliberate disregard for court orders and the litigation process.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under the Family Law Rules, the court found the circumstances sufficiently egregious and ordered the respondent’s Answer and Claim struck.