Daniel Musselman

The applicant father commenced litigation seeking shared parenting and alleging parental alienation after the children refused overnight visits.

Following an assessment that found the children's views were independent and based on the father's behaviour, the matter settled with the father receiving daytime visits only.

The respondent mother sought costs as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party, as the father's claims were unreasonable and he ultimately capitulated.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The appellant father appealed an order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple costs orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The motion judge found the father's non-compliance was willful and that his conduct was harming the children.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's factual findings but found an error in principle in failing to consider alternative remedies to completely barring the father from the trial.

The appeal was allowed in part; the pleadings remained struck, but the father was granted limited participation rights at the custody and access trial to cross-examine the joint assessor and make closing arguments.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for sole custody of the parties' daughter, with no access to the respondent mother, due to concerns of parental alienation.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial, including the right to cross-examine the father's expert psychiatrist.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding custody, finding that a trial was necessary to determine if the alienation had been overcome by the daughter's exclusive residence with the father over the past year.

The court continued the temporary sole custody order and fixed an uncontested spousal support overpayment at $15,635.