Tina Hinsperger

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division following a short, high-conflict marriage.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children and primary residence, with the applicant having alternate weekend access.

The applicant's income was imputed to $60,000 (or $78,102 for 2018) for child support purposes due to intentional under-employment.

No spousal support was awarded.

The date of separation was determined as February 1, 2015, and the matrimonial home was held in joint tenancy, rejecting the applicant's resulting trust claim.