Dilani Gunarajah

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month retroactive to the date of separation, plus a lump sum of $5,000 for schooling costs, and requested that income be imputed to the respondent at $120,000.

The respondent offered $750 per month and opposed income imputation.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual bases.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his 2013 tax return of $97,899 due to incomplete disclosure and inconsistencies in his financial documentation.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month as of April 1, 2015, with arrears of $12,000 from June 1, 2014 to March 1, 2015, payable at a minimum of $50 per month.

A motion by a maternal grandfather to be added as a party to child protection proceedings, or alternatively to have specified rights to participate.

The child, a 15½-year-old girl, had been in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society for one year following allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the mother and failure to protect by the father.

The grandfather proposed a plan for the child's placement in his care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the grandfather had a legal interest in the proceedings and had proposed a carefully thought-out plan, the child's clear and consistent rejection of contact with him rendered the plan unlikely to be viable.

The court noted that the child's views and preferences are an important factor in determining best interests for a child of this age, and that the parents' counsel could adequately present the grandfather's plan without him being added as a party.

Following a four‑day family law trial primarily concerning custody of the parties’ children, the court addressed costs.

The trial resulted in a shared custody order, retroactive child support, and ongoing spousal support, with the applicant largely successful except on retroactive spousal support.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant achieved substantial success and was presumptively entitled to costs.

Because the applicant obtained a result equal to or better than her formal offer to settle under Rule 18, she was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $16,180 inclusive of HST.

A family law trial addressing custody, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support following separation.

The parties had already been exercising a shared parenting arrangement for several years.

The respondent alleged the applicant had alcohol abuse and parenting deficiencies and sought sole custody, while the applicant sought continuation of shared custody.

The court found the allegations largely unsupported and determined both parties were capable parents.

Joint custody with equal parenting time was ordered, retroactive child support was granted, retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to delay and hardship considerations, and ongoing child and spousal support were set based on imputed and actual incomes.