Morrison Reid

The applicant father and respondent mother separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found the parents were engaged in a high-conflict relationship and were unable to communicate or cooperate, making joint custody impossible.

However, the court also found that granting sole custody to the mother would likely lead to further conflict and marginalize the father.

The court ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with a week-about schedule, dividing decision-making responsibilities.

The court also imputed income of $150,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding he was intentionally under-employed, and declined to order the mother to pay child support despite the shared custody arrangement due to the significant income disparity.

The father's claims for occupation rent, vehicle lease reimbursement, and property equalization were dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte interim custody order that had granted custody of his two children to their maternal uncle following the mother's suicide.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children had a strong bond with their father and expressed a clear preference to live with him.

Despite the uncle providing a stable home and the father having a dated criminal record, the court concluded that reuniting the children with their natural parent was in their best interests.

The motion was granted, and interim custody was awarded to the father.

The father brought a motion to change a 2003 custody order to change the primary residence of his 13-year-old twin boys from the mother's home to his own.

The mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the father's parenting ability, alcohol consumption, and past conduct.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted an assessment and recommended the change, noting the boys' strong, independent, and genuine desire to live with their father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and held that respecting the mature children's wishes was in their best interests.

Joint custody was ordered, with primary residence transferred to the father.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody and parallel parenting of the parties' four-year-old child.

She sought sole custody, arguing the trial judge erred in prioritizing the father's interests, presuming co-parenting was appropriate, and ordering joint custody despite parental conflict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal, finding the trial judge made no reviewable errors and that the child was thriving under the joint custody arrangement.

The Court varied the parenting schedule to align with a post-trial expert assessment and allowed the appeal regarding child support, ordering the respondent to pay support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.