Edith M. Holly

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for joint shared custody and equal parenting time of the parties' nine-year-old twins.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking an order for supervised access without overnights, citing recent allegations of domestic violence for which the father was criminally charged.

The court found no evidence of exceptional circumstances requiring supervised access, noting the Children's Aid Society had closed its file and the risk appeared to have dissipated after separation.

The court declined to order a week-on/week-off schedule due to insufficient evidence but granted the father unsupervised parenting time on alternating weekends and Wednesday evenings.

The court determined costs for a lengthy motion concerning custody, access, OCL appointment, contempt, child support, and spousal support.

The mother was found to have engaged in significant parental alienation and breached court orders, leading to the father being granted temporary sole custody.

The father's offer to settle was more favourable than the outcome for the mother.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $32,055.51, payable by the mother, but deferred payment until the final resolution of financial issues, with interest.

This decision addresses issues of child support, spousal support, and a contempt motion following a previous decision on parenting.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for failing to deposit the child's Russian birth certificate as ordered.

The court found that the mother's disobedience was not proven to be deliberate and wilful beyond a reasonable doubt, adjourning the contempt motion with conditions for the mother to provide further evidence of her efforts to locate the document and directions to the Russian Embassy.

Regarding support, the court considered a pre-nuptial agreement but ordered interim spousal support of $3,192 per month from the father to the mother, and child support of $192 per month from the mother to the father, resulting in a net payment of $3,000 per month to the mother.

The court declined to order the immediate payment of a $150,000 lump sum stipulated in the marriage contract due to concerns about the mother being a flight risk and potential recovery issues if the contract is later invalidated.

The Respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody of the parties' 13-year-old child and a suspension of the Applicant mother's access, alleging severe parental alienation.

The father also sought a finding of contempt for the mother's failure to deposit the child's birth certificate.

The mother opposed, seeking primary care with supervised access for the father, and cross-moved for child/spousal support and OCL appointment.

The court found the mother engaged in significant alienating behaviors, granting the father sole custody and suspending the mother's access for two months, to be reviewed after reunification counseling.

The issues of contempt and support were reserved for a later decision.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment in a family law matter concerning the amendment of a 2014 Final Order.

The respondent sought changes to custody, decision-making, and parenting schedules for two children, N and S, alleging the applicant was in contempt for changing the children's schools without consent.

The applicant sought to maintain sole decision-making and opposed the contempt allegations.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding school and custody issues.

It dismissed the respondent's contempt claim, affirming the applicant's sole decision-making authority in changing schools in the children's best interests.

The court established a new parenting schedule, largely incorporating the children's wishes as reported by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and clarified protocols for passports and communication.

The respondent's request for $5,000 compensation was denied, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where the respondent was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure of medical information.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's failure to comply with a separation agreement and court orders.

The respondent argued for no costs due to disability and divided success.

The court, applying Rule 24 factors, found the applicant largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and financial capacity.

The applicant sought orders to dispense with the respondent's consent for the sale of the matrimonial home, disburse sale proceeds according to their separation agreement, and grant exclusive possession of the home.

The respondent consented to the listing and sale but wished to remain in the home, raising concerns about his capacity to enter the separation agreement.

The court declined to dispense with the respondent's consent for sale and denied exclusive possession at that time, finding no immediate evidence of non-cooperation.

However, the court ordered the home to be listed for sale within strict timelines, with both parties required to cooperate fully on all aspects of the sale process.

The issue of exclusive possession was adjourned, to be revisited if the respondent failed to comply with the sale orders.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding a previous default order made while the respondent was in pre-trial custody on criminal charges that were later dismissed.

The respondent sought to vary child support and vacate a restraining order, while the applicant sought to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant and impute income.

The court found the previously imputed income was unrealistically high given the respondent's circumstances, reducing the imputed income to $25,000 and child support to $200 per month.

The court declined to vacate the restraining order and dismissed the applicant's other requests, ordering strict compliance with existing disclosure and cost orders.

Following a family law trial, the court released an addendum to earlier reasons after recognizing that certain issues had not been addressed, including net family property equalization, section 7 expenses, and clarification of child support.

The court held that it retained jurisdiction to resolve matters not previously determined despite arguments that it was functus officio.

After reviewing the parties’ financial statements and submissions, the court accepted the respondent’s equalization calculation and ordered payment to the applicant in monthly instalments.

The court also clarified the applicant’s ongoing obligations for section 7 expenses and established procedures for future proportional sharing based on annual income disclosure.

An order for ongoing child support was specified based on the applicant’s income and the applicable Federal Child Support Tables.

The parties reached an agreement on all issues except the choice of school for their four-year-old child and the resulting parenting schedule.

The applicant mother sought to have the child attend a public school near her residence, while the respondent father sought a Catholic school near his residence.

Relying on the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend the school near the mother's residence to minimize travel and transitions, and to allow the child to attend the same school as her half-sister.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother during the school week, with the father having access three out of four weekends.