3 total
The court awarded sole custody to the father and time-limited spousal support to the mother after finding her sexual abuse allegations against the father unproven.
This high-conflict family law case involved a dispute over parenting arrangements for a 10-year-old child and spousal support.
The applicant mother alleged sexual assault by the respondent father and sought no contact, while the father denied the allegations and sought to continue sole custody with expanded parenting time for the mother.
The court found the sexual assault allegations unproven and concluded that the parties' acrimony precluded co-parenting.
Sole custody was granted to the father, with a graduated expansion of the mother's parenting time.
Spousal support was awarded to the mother for a fixed period, with income imputed to her due to intentional unemployment.
The court ordered the immediate return of children unilaterally withheld by their father as an improper self-help remedy.
The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of her two children, who had remained with the respondent father after March break during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The father had unilaterally withheld the children, alleging physical abuse by the mother, which was investigated and closed by child protection authorities without finding imminent concerns.
The court found the father's actions to be a "self-help remedy" contrary to the rule of law and granted the mother's motion for the children's immediate return, along with a modest request for costs.
The court dismissed a mother's motion for a section 30 assessment, finding the existing OCL report adequately addressed the child's needs.
The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the appointment of an assessor and costs of the assessment pursuant to section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
The parties are parents of a nine-year-old child with diagnosed ADHD and Adjustment Disorder.
The applicant argued that a section 30 assessment was necessary because the prior Office of the Children's Lawyer report did not include direct communication with the child's psychiatrist.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the OCL report was comprehensive and that subjecting the child to another assessment would not be in the child's best interests.
The court denied the motion, finding that the OCL report adequately addressed the child's clinical needs and that the applicant's true objective appeared to be obtaining a report favourable to her position.