D. Macfarlane

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent failed to comply with a consent order implementing the parties’ property division following separation.

The order required the transfer of properties, release of mortgage liabilities, transfer of a vehicle, and payment of an equalization amount.

The court held that the equalization payment constituted a “payment order” under the Family Law Rules and could not be enforced through contempt.

However, the remaining provisions concerning transfers of property, assumption of debts, and transfer of a vehicle were obligations to perform acts and were capable of enforcement through contempt.

Because the affidavit evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent’s breaches were wilful, the court directed a focused one‑day trial to determine whether the non‑compliance was intentional.

Following separation after a short marriage with one child, the court determined outstanding issues of property equalization, reimbursement claims, child support, spousal support, custody, and access.

The applicant sought reimbursement for funds paid during the marriage and sole custody of the child, while the respondent sought joint custody with shared residency.

The court found that certain funds transferred during the marriage constituted a gift and denied reimbursement, but ordered payment of $10,000 promised by the respondent to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home.

Joint custody was rejected due to significant parental conflict and the respondent’s rigid parenting approach, which the court found would impede cooperative decision‑making.

Sole custody was granted to the applicant with structured access to the respondent and guideline child support.