Edward Charles Castle

This is a costs decision following a 5-day family law trial.

The court found the Applicant, Lynne Baribeau, to be the more successful party overall, despite mixed success on various issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent, Marc Baribeau, had credibility issues regarding asset valuation, while the Applicant's involvement of children was problematic.

Considering factors such as party behavior, offers to settle, and the proportionality of fees, the court awarded the Applicant $25,000 in inclusive costs, rejecting the Respondent's assertion of inability to pay given his higher income.

The Respondent, Dr. Norman Lauzon, brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant, Ms. Louise Mignault, brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or mutual possession, and for interim spousal support.

The court granted Dr. Lauzon exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding continued cohabitation intolerable and the balance of convenience favouring him due to health considerations.

The court also ordered Dr. Lauzon to pay interim spousal support to Ms. Mignault in the amount of $1,600.00 per month, imputing income to him from his RRSPs and applying the "interim" exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to compelling financial circumstances.

Cross-applications were brought by separated parents under the Substitute Decisions Act seeking appointment as guardian of the property and personal care of their adult daughter who had a moderate developmental disability and epilepsy and was incapable of managing property or personal care.

The court reviewed expert psychological evidence, service-provider testimony, and the daughter’s declining life skills and limited participation in developmental programs while living primarily with the mother.

Applying the statutory criteria for guardianship, the court concluded the father was better positioned to provide stimulation, structure, and access to support services necessary to maintain or improve the incapable person’s functioning.

The court therefore appointed the father as sole guardian of property and personal care, with detailed conditions governing finances, services, residence, and the mother’s ongoing contact.

A dispute between parents concerning guardianship of their adult daughter who was incapable of managing her property and personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court confirmed the daughter’s continued incapacity and terminated the parents’ joint guardianship due to ongoing conflict.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as full guardian of property and temporary guardian of the person.

The court imposed detailed interim residence and communication arrangements between the parents and emphasized the urgent need for placement in an appropriate group home for adults with developmental disabilities in Eastern Ontario.

The applicant brought a family law motion addressing child support, arrears, section 7 expenses, access-related travel costs, life insurance security for support obligations, and an alleged alcohol restriction during access.

The court set ongoing child support according to the applicable Child Support Guidelines table amount based on the respondent’s income and rejected the respondent’s request to reduce support due to travel expenses incurred to exercise access.

However, the court ordered a limited contribution from the applicant toward the respondent’s access travel costs, payable per visit and not as a set-off against child support.

The court confirmed significant child support arrears due to the respondent’s failure to disclose income annually as required by a prior order and ordered repayment by monthly instalments.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionally to income, and the respondent was required to designate the applicant as life insurance trustee for the children.

The requested alcohol ban during access was declined for lack of evidence.