Eric Shapiro

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt for vaccinating their child against COVID-19 without her consent, in breach of a final parenting order granting her final decision-making authority.

The court found that the father intentionally breached the order and fabricated email evidence to conceal his actions.

However, applying a staged approach to contempt in high-conflict family disputes, the court declined to make a formal contempt finding.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach and fined the father $5,000 pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother's request for a fresh parenting assessment was dismissed as premature.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order to travel with the parties' 10-year-old child to Greece for the Christmas School Break.

The respondent mother opposed the travel due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Omicron variant, and the child only having one dose of the vaccine.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the international trip posed a higher risk and was not in the child's best interests, particularly noting the father's prior breaches of court orders and public health rules.

The applicant, Qi Xue, brought a motion seeking an order for financial disclosure from his stepdaughter, Yimeng Sun (Serena), in the context of a broader family law application for divorce, support, and property equalization against his spouse, Xiuping Sun, and Serena.

Serena opposed the disclosure, arguing that there was no evidence of parental care from Xue, the disclosure sought was disproportionate, and that support should be primarily sought from the spouse.

The court found that Xue had an arguable case for having provided care or support to Serena, thereby engaging Section 32 of the Family Law Act, and demonstrated a need for support.

Additionally, both Xue's property and support claims, and Serena's own property claim against Xue, triggered the financial disclosure requirements under Rule 13(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion, ordering Serena to provide the requested financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a nine-year marriage during which they both worked at a motel owned by the respondent.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court determined the date of separation value of the motel and the integrated matrimonial home, rejecting the applicant's claims for occupation rent and cottage carrying costs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $659,833.64.

The court also found the applicant entitled to compensatory spousal support due to economic disadvantage from the marriage breakdown, awarding a lump sum of $44,412 based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following earlier motions in a family law proceeding concerning parenting arrangements, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to reach agreement.

The successful party had served a compliant and reasonable offer to settle before the motions and later provided a detailed bill of costs and a further settlement offer regarding costs, both of which went unanswered.

Applying rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered fairness, the parties’ conduct, and the effect of the unaccepted offer to settle.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

Total costs were fixed and made payable within sixty days.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time and an order restraining the respondent mother from making major decisions regarding their child without his consent.

The respondent mother sought an increase in temporary child support based on the father's new employment in New York.

The court granted the father's request for increased parenting time, noting the importance of overnight visits for young children to foster attachment.

The court also enjoined the mother from making major decisions without the father's written consent, distinguishing the case from situations where parents cannot communicate.

The mother's request for increased child support was dismissed as the father's potential bonus had not yet been received.

The applicant sought to modify existing custody and access orders concerning the child Kyla Elizabeth Campbell.

The respondent father had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court granted supervised access for a four-month period with specific conditions including monthly blood tests, restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption, and provisions for unsupervised access upon successful completion of the supervised period.

The court also addressed child support arrears, ongoing support obligations, and various access arrangements including holidays and summer vacation.

The applicant retained primary custody.

Costs decision following a family law motion previously decided by the court.

The parties reached an agreement regarding costs after the motion ruling was released.

The court endorsed the agreement, ordering the respondent to pay $2,500 in costs to the applicant, inclusive, to be satisfied by way of set‑off against future spousal support.

The court also clarified the total amount to be redirected by the Family Responsibility Office in accordance with the earlier endorsement.