Desi Nikolova

The applicant father sought expanded and equal parenting time with the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the child was struggling with developmental challenges including autism spectrum disorder and that maintaining the existing parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court found that the respondent had unreasonably created a new status quo by limiting the applicant's parenting time after separation, contrary to the parties' pre-separation equal arrangement.

The court granted the applicant's motion for equal parenting time, finding that the child's professional reports supported greater contact with both parents and that the applicant's more flexible approach to the child's development aligned better with professional recommendations.

This decision addresses a father's motion for parenting time after allegations of sexual abuse by the mother led to a cessation of contact with their 2½-year-old child.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the limited and unverified evidence of abuse, the history of the parental relationship, and the impact of family violence allegations by both parties.

The court found no concrete evidence supporting the sexual abuse allegations and emphasized the importance of supervised parenting time rather than a complete denial.

The decision orders supervised parenting time with a gradual increase to be managed by the Superior Court of Justice, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in high-conflict family law cases involving serious allegations.

This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.

The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).

The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.

Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.

The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with his two children, having been denied contact by the respondent mother since April 2021 following an alleged domestic assault.

The mother opposed in-person contact, citing the outstanding criminal charges and allegations of family violence.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, finding that the uncorroborated allegations did not justify denying the children time with their father.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the father, gradually stepping up to unsupervised access.