Erin Lepine

This decision addresses interim motions in a family law dispute between Asghedom Ehdego and Rajpreet Puni regarding the relocation of their child, Leena, from Ottawa to Richmond, BC, and the appropriate interim parenting schedule.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate with the child and granted the father's request for a shared 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule.

The court also addressed issues of child support, imputation of income, and deferred the issue of occupational rent to trial.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the parties' competing evidence on parenting roles, the child's connections to Ottawa and BC, and the legal principles governing interim relocation and parenting orders.

This family law trial addressed three main issues: the regular parenting schedule, the respondent's alcohol consumption during parenting time, and the children's contact with a third party.

The applicant sought an asymmetric shared parenting schedule, mandatory alcohol monitoring for the respondent, and restrictions on contact with Ms. Foy.

The court affirmed the existing equal-time parenting schedule, finding it promoted the children's best interests and stability.

It ordered the respondent to abstain from alcohol during parenting time and use an alcohol monitoring device for one year due to past breaches of court orders and lack of insight into the impact of his drinking.

The request for restrictions on contact with Ms. Foy was dismissed, as the court found it overreaching and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis, noting Ms. Foy was not a party to the litigation.

This appeal arose from high-conflict divorce litigation, addressing three issues: the division of post-valuation date increase in the matrimonial home's value, the determination of parties' incomes for child support, and the s. 7 expense order.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in applying proprietary estoppel to divide the post-separation increase in the matrimonial home's value, as the respondent did not demonstrate detrimental reliance.

The appeal on income imputation and s. 7 expenses was dismissed, with clarification provided for the latter.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The moving party father brought a motion to appoint an expert to conduct an assessment of the parties' 9-year-old child regarding potential gender dysphoria and the use of male pronouns.

The responding party mother brought a cross-motion to appoint a different expert for a narrower assessment regarding gender pronouns.

The court reviewed the qualifications, availability, and processes of the proposed assessors.

The court appointed the father's proposed expert, noting his extensive experience, ability to provide an expeditious report, and the urgent need to proceed given the delay since the assessment was originally ordered on consent.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought to set aside a marriage contract signed days before the wedding, claiming she did not understand its nature or consequences.

The court agreed and set aside the contract, awarding the mother an equalization payment of $289,170.15 and spousal support of $3,636 per month for seven years.

On parenting, the court found the mother had engaged in parental alienation, severely damaging the father's relationship with the 16-year-old child.

The court ordered joint decision-making and mandatory reunification counselling, with costs of the counselling to be shared equally.

The respondent brought a motion to distribute net sale proceeds from two jointly owned properties held in trust, which the applicant did not oppose.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking the sale of a third jointly held property and a preservation order to hold the net proceeds in trust to secure her claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the third property and the release of the trust funds.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests for preservation orders, finding she failed to establish irreparable harm for the support claim and failed to meet the test for a Mareva injunction regarding the unjust enrichment claim.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 on a full recovery basis following successful motions for temporary sole custody and enforcement of minutes of settlement.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by unilaterally terminating access and fabricating abuse allegations shortly after signing the minutes of settlement.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs of $40,000, finding the amount proportionate and reasonable given the complexity of the issues and the respondent's conduct.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to resume the regular parenting schedule, which was denied because she failed to attempt to resolve the dispute before coming to court.

The respondent mother subsequently sought costs for the urgency determination, arguing for an elevated award due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $2,100, finding no bad faith on the applicant's part but affirming the respondent's presumptive entitlement to costs as the successful party.

The applicant, O.M., sought to confirm and replace provisions of minutes of settlement, including custody and access, alleging parental alienation by the respondent, S.K. S.K. made serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse against O.M. and sought primary custody with supervised access.

The court found S.K.'s evidence not credible due to internal inconsistencies and her behavior following the alleged incidents.

The court found that S.K. engaged in parental alienation strategies.

Consequently, the court granted O.M. temporary sole custody and primary care of the child, with limited access to S.K., and confirmed the minutes of settlement regarding exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and spousal support.

Interim child support was ordered in accordance with the minutes of settlement, with O.M. entitled to seek reconciliation for overpayments.

The respondent sought an adjournment of the applicant's motion, citing counsel unavailability and medical reasons.

The court denied the request, emphasizing the best interests of the child, the need for expeditious resolution of parenting issues, and the lack of sufficient evidentiary support for the adjournment grounds.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including unilateral withholding of access and inconsistent actions regarding minutes of settlement, weighed against granting the adjournment.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to resume the equal parenting schedule set out in the parties' separation agreement, alleging the respondent mother was withholding the children and alienating them.

The children had refused to return to the applicant's home following the introduction of her new partner and an alleged physical incident.

The court declined to hear the motion on an urgent basis, finding no evidence of alienation by the respondent, who had encouraged the children and proposed mediation.

The court held that the applicant should have exhausted reasonable avenues for resolution, such as mediation or meeting with the children, before resorting to urgent litigation during the pandemic.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent mother's access to their 7-year-old son, C.A.B., citing concerns about her compliance with COVID-19 directives and lack of communication regarding safety measures.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the importance of routine, declined to suspend access.

Instead, it ordered that the existing access schedule continue, subject to new conditions and restrictions related to COVID-19 protocols, including immediate notification of potential exposure, detailed communication via Family Wizard after visits, the father primarily providing transportation, and avoiding public transportation as much as possible.

Costs were reserved.

The court awarded the applicant father $20,000 in costs following a 6-day trial where he was largely successful in obtaining sole custody and primary residence.

The respondent mother, who was self-represented, was found to have been unprepared and unreasonable in her litigation conduct, though her financial circumstances were considered in determining the quantum of costs.

The court significantly reduced the father's requested costs due to proportionality concerns, duplication of legal efforts, and lack of itemized disbursements.

The applicant wife sought spousal support under the Divorce Act.

The respondent husband opposed the application, arguing the parties were validly divorced in Syria in 2008.

A focused hearing was held to determine whether the Syrian divorce should be recognized in Canada.

The court found that Syria lacked jurisdiction as neither party was domiciled there, nor did they have a real and substantial connection to Syria at the time of the divorce.

Furthermore, the court held that the Syrian divorce process, which denied the wife the ability to contest the divorce, breached Canadian principles of natural justice.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce and allowed the wife's spousal support application to proceed.

The moving party (respondent in the family application) sought to strike the application or suspend a temporary spousal support order due to the responding party's failure to comply with a disclosure order and delay the proceedings.

The responding party had failed to produce income information, medical records regarding a pain management clinic, and pharmacy records.

The court found the non-disclosure to be willful and significant to the moving party's defense against the spousal support claim.

The court declined to strike the application but imposed a strict timetable, stayed the temporary spousal support order until disclosure is complete, and ordered that support be reduced once reinstated.

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 by the biological great aunt of a child to be added as a party in a custody application initiated by a non-biological caregiver.

The child's father is deceased, and the mother has disappeared.

The court considered the discretion to add parties under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, applying criteria from relevant case law, including the child's best interests, potential for delay, necessity, and the proposed party's plan.

Finding the circumstances unusual and that all relevant information was necessary for a just determination of the child's best interests, the court granted the great aunt's motion to be added as a party.