Ms. Barbara Dyszuk

Following a lengthy, high-conflict parenting and support trial between self-represented former spouses, the court held that the mother should have sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, with the father exercising alternate weekend parenting time.

Applying the Divorce Act best-interests framework, the court found that the father was the principal source of coercive, controlling, and toxic post-separation behaviour, and that the younger child’s anorexia and vulnerability required clearer boundaries and reduced parental conflict.

The court also recalculated retroactive child support from 2016, fixed ongoing support, apportioned extraordinary dance and activity expenses, and ordered that proceeds of a jointly owned rental property sold contrary to the separation agreement be paid to the mother in trust for the children.

A request for restraining orders was denied because the legal test for reasonable grounds to fear for safety was not met, although the mother was otherwise substantially successful.

In an ongoing family law trial, the self-represented respondent father failed to attend the continuation of the trial, citing suicidal ideation and mental health issues triggered by the proceedings.

The applicant mother opposed a further adjournment, noting the respondent's functional behavior outside of court and his history of delaying the trial.

Applying the factors from Moudry, the court found no procedural unfairness in proceeding, as the respondent had already provided substantial evidence and his absence appeared voluntary rather than medically necessary.

The court denied the adjournment request and ordered the trial to continue, permitting the respondent to appoint a non-lawyer agent if he chose not to attend personally.