Eve Theriault

The parties brought cross-motions in an ongoing family law proceeding.

The respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure, an increase in child support, and an order holding the proceeds of the matrimonial home sale in trust.

The applicant sought expanded, unsupervised weekend parenting time.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered compliance within 45 days.

The court granted the increase in child support and ordered the home sale proceeds held in trust.

Regarding parenting time, the court found a material change in circumstances and granted the applicant two additional hours of unsupervised parenting time per week, while maintaining the existing supervised parenting time.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

Following a nine-day trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the husband's foreign properties in Morocco, and ordered the equalization payment to be made via a pension rollover.

The court also ordered the husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, proportionate shares of section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support on a compensatory and needs basis.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

The moving party mother brought a motion for contempt against the responding party father, alleging he breached a final order by unreasonably withholding consent to enroll their child in hockey and refusing to take the child to games and practices during his parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the order only required consent prior to registration, which the mother bypassed by enrolling the child unilaterally.

Furthermore, the order did not clearly compel the father to take the child to the activity.

The court noted that a motion to change, rather than a contempt motion, was the appropriate procedure to address the issue.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a final family law order obtained by default after failing to file an Answer to an application.

The court considered whether the respondent acted promptly, whether he had a viable defence, whether the outcome might have differed, and whether he acted in good faith.

The evidence raised serious concerns about whether the application had been properly served, including deficiencies in the affidavit of service and conflicting evidence regarding who received the documents.

The court accepted that the respondent first learned of the order when his pension was garnished and found he acted promptly thereafter.

In the interests of justice, the default final order addressing property, custody, and support was set aside.