Deborah Lee Barfknecht

The applicant husband brought a motion for the immediate interim sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent wife opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion to amend her pleadings to seek a vesting order, citing the husband's significant spousal support arrears.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that an interim sale would prejudice the wife's claims at the imminent trial, particularly given the outstanding disclosure and the disputed validity of a $500,000 mortgage held by the husband's mother.

The wife's motion to amend her pleadings was granted.

This endorsement addresses the problematic use of "Notice of Change of Representation" forms in family law proceedings, particularly when counsel attempts to unilaterally and belatedly withdraw from the record on the eve of trial.

The court reviews the chronology of representation, the impact on the parties and the child, and the responsibilities of counsel in family litigation.

The trial is ordered to proceed as scheduled, with counsel confirmed on the record and the adjournment request withdrawn.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

The court addresses two motions brought by the self-represented applicant father in a high-conflict parenting dispute.

The first, on consent, requests involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The second seeks to strike the respondent mother’s Response to Request to Admit, which was served 68 minutes late.

The court reviews the relevant case law and the Family Law Rules, ultimately exercising discretion to allow the late filing, finding no prejudice to the father and emphasizing the need for common sense and focus on the best interests of the children.

This decision addresses costs following a motion concerning the scheduling of parenting time for a child.

The respondent mother was successful on the underlying motion and presumptively entitled to costs, having served an offer that exceeded the result obtained.

However, the applicant father also filed a genuine settlement offer.

The court noted that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith, and both sought to maximize time with their son.

Given the parties' respectful conduct, their successful negotiation of other issues, and the close nature of the decision on the remaining issue, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs.

This motion concerned the scheduling of a "fourth weekend" of parenting time for a five-year-old child, River, in a blended family context.

The applicant father, a long-distance truck driver, proposed a variable schedule based on the last weekend of each month due to his work.

The respondent mother sought a fixed four-week cycle to ensure her son could spend one weekend per month with his half-sister.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, finding that the father's variable schedule would lead to unreasonable gaps in the mother's time with both children and was more cumbersome for planning.

The court granted the mother's request for a fixed four-week cycle.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in treating a debt extinguished by bankruptcy shortly after the marriage as a date of marriage debt, valuing it instead at zero based on the likelihood of repayment.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in setting aside a pre-trial settlement agreement regarding a leased car based on common mistake, as the mistake did not go to the root of the agreement and the respondent was partially at fault.

The trial judge's factual findings regarding the respondent's date of marriage debt and the appellant's post-separation use of a joint line of credit were upheld.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for indefinite supervised access to the children of the marriage, arguing it made obtaining future unsupervised access practically and legally impossible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's exceptional order was supported by evidence of the appellant's attempts to manipulate the children and subject them to repeated professional assessments.

The Court noted the order does not preclude the appellant from seeking to vary the terms of access in the future upon proof of a material change in circumstances.