Elizabeth Sheppard

This case involves a high-conflict family law dispute over a 13-year-old child.

The respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child from the applicant father, violating a final parenting order for an alternating week-about schedule, and subsequently filed a motion to change seeking sole decision-making.

The father brought a motion for contempt and enforcement of the existing order.

The court found that the mother knowingly refused to comply with the order and attempted to create a new status quo.

While the elements of contempt were met, the court opted for other avenues to ensure compliance.

The mother failed to prove a material and compelling change in circumstances to justify a temporary variation of the final order.

The court ordered a gradual reintroduction of the alternating week-about schedule, emphasizing that the mother's unilateral actions had negatively impacted the child's mental health and relationship with the father.

The applicant mother sought to strike the respondent father's pleadings in response to her motion to change access and to require leave for the father to bring further litigation, specifically a motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the father's pleadings regarding access, emphasizing the importance of a full evidentiary record in custody/access matters.

However, the court granted the request to require the father to obtain leave before pursuing any motion to change child support, citing his egregious history of non-compliance with financial disclosure orders and outstanding costs.

The Crown and co-defendants moved to strike a crossclaim filed by a former correctional officer, John Barbro, which included claims for malicious prosecution, defamation, and bad faith wrongful dismissal.

The moving parties argued that the essential character of these claims arose from a collective agreement and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The court applied the Weber framework, finding that the dispute's essential character was workplace-related, stemming from an incident, subsequent investigation, and disciplinary process governed by the collective agreement.

The court rejected arguments for concurrent jurisdiction based on the MCSA and PACA, and declined to exercise residual discretion.

The motion to strike the crossclaim (except for contribution and indemnity) was granted, with leave for Mr. Barbro to file an amended statement of defence and crossclaim.