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 Applicant sought sole custody, therapeutic supervised access, and child support.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with court orders and misconduct during access visits.

The court granted the Applicant sole custody, ordered no access for the Respondent (subject to a future therapeutic plan at his expense), fixed ongoing and retroactive child support, and dismissed the Applicant's request to declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant but imposed an order under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules preventing him from bringing further proceedings until outstanding costs are paid.

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.

In a family law motion to change following several prior consent orders, the court determined parenting access, child support, extraordinary expenses, and arrears.

The parties shared joint custody of a child whose primary residence remained with the mother while the father had relocated to British Columbia.

The court held that extended summer access with the father was in the child’s best interests and ordered five consecutive weeks of annual summer parenting time along with structured telephone contact.

Table child support was set using the payor’s province of residence pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, and extraordinary expenses were converted from a fixed monthly contribution to proportionate sharing.

Existing arrears established by consent were not reduced, though the monthly repayment amount was lowered due to the payor’s reduced income.