Erin L. Reid

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence of the children, and support.

The respondent sought shared parenting and the sale of the home.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession, finding it was in the children's best interests to remain in the home while the respondent had alternative accommodation with his parents.

The court ordered joint decision-making, primary residence with the applicant, and specified parenting time for the respondent.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child and spousal support.

The Applicant Mother sought interim child and spousal support from the Respondent Father.

The Father consented to child support but disputed spousal support, arguing for no payment and the imputation of income to the Mother due to alleged underemployment and underutilization of capital assets (equalization payment and family farm).

The court found that entitlement to spousal support had already been established by a previous order.

The court declined to impute employment income to the Mother, considering her long absence from the workforce, her role in caring for a special needs child, and her partial blindness.

It also declined to impute income from capital assets, citing unsettled valuations and unclear income-earning potential.

The Father's motion for a variation to pay no interim spousal support was dismissed.

The court awarded the Mother interim spousal support of $2,900 per month from September 1, 2019, and set specific interim child support amounts.

The moving party brought a motion to disqualify the responding party's lawyer due to a conflict of interest.

The lawyer had represented the moving party 15 years prior in a family law matter involving his first wife, where issues of income and support were also determined.

The court found that the two cases were sufficiently connected and that the lawyer failed to rebut the presumption that confidential information was imparted during the prior retainer.

The court concluded that there was a realistic risk of a conflict of interest and an appearance of divided loyalties, disqualifying the lawyer from acting against his former client.

The appellant father appealed a parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and exclusive residence for the children due to alleged parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The trial judge had previously found alienation but declined to reverse custody due to intervening circumstances (father's new child, pandemic, children's immediate mental health).

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence from a psychologist but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's holistic assessment of the children's best interests, which prioritized their immediate mental health and stability over a disruptive custody reversal, especially given the new family dynamics and pandemic stressors.

The court ordered a brief review hearing in one year to ensure compliance with therapy orders.

The applicant sought costs of $28,500.86 following a successful motion to determine the venue of the family law proceeding.

The respondent argued for costs of $6,500, payable at the conclusion of the case.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive and noted her unreasonable conduct in unilaterally moving the children without notice.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, payable 30 days after the final disposition of the application.

The applicant achieved success on a motion dismissing a third party's attempt to be added as a party respondent.

The applicant sought costs for the motion.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at $3,750 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the third party within 45 days.

Following an interim custody proceeding where the applicant father was successful in obtaining an order for equal shared parenting, he sought costs of $28,421.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parents had litigated in good faith out of genuine love for their children.

The court held that imposing a costs award against the respondent mother would negatively impact her financial ability to maintain the shared parenting arrangement, which would ultimately harm the children.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

In an interim custody dispute, the applicant father sought shared joint custody or sole custody with equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with limited access.

The court found the mother's affidavit evidence less reliable due to audio recordings revealing her verbal and physical abuse.

The court declined to make an interim custody order but established a temporary week-about (equal) residence schedule for the children, emphasizing the Divorce Act's principle of maximum contact with both parents and the children's best interests.

Supplemental orders were issued to facilitate the parenting arrangement and minimize conflict.