Fay Ann Guilbeault

The applicant sought an order to release a transcript of statements made by the respondent during a settlement conference, alleging contradictions with the respondent's sworn statements regarding employment and income.

The respondent opposed, asserting the confidentiality of settlement conferences.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that settlement conferences are confidential to foster open discussion and resolution, as per Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that unsworn statements from a settlement conference are not equivalent to sworn testimony and that the applicant had alternative means to introduce contradictory evidence.

The court reiterated its role as a gatekeeper against disclosure, reserving exceptions for extraordinary circumstances like safety risks, which were not present.

The parties, separated parents of three children, brought cross-motions concerning the temporary residence of their children and the partition and sale of their matrimonial home.

The court upheld the existing temporary residence arrangement, emphasizing the children's views and the ongoing work of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dismissing the respondent's concerns about market timing during COVID-19 and unresolved financial issues, finding no prejudice to property rights under the Family Law Act.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 10-day trial to change a 2015 final order concerning parenting and child support.

Both the applicant father and respondent mother sought costs, each claiming to be the successful party.

The court found mixed success, noting that while the mother had more individual issue wins, the father succeeded on more substantive issues, including maintaining three weekends of access per month and the imputation of his income at $30,000.00.

The court also found both parties had behaved unreasonably and in bad faith over the years, contributing to ongoing conflict.

Considering the father's more favourable Offer to Settle and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the father reduced costs.

The parties, parents of two children, sought to vary a 2015 final order regarding custody, access, and child support due to ongoing high conflict and differing interpretations of the order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to worsening conflict and non-compliance.

The decision addressed communication, telephone calls, decision-making, access to information, regular access schedules, summer vacation, Christmas, Mother's/Father's Day, March Break, Thanksgiving, driving for access, police enforcement, child support (imputing income to the father), and Section 7 expenses.

The court aimed to clarify and fine-tune the existing order to minimize conflict and ensure the children's best interests.

Following a two-day family law trial, the respondent sought costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that while the respondent was more successful on issues such as retroactive child support and the date of separation, the applicant also had some success and the respondent's handling of a joint line of credit made the trial inevitable.

Recognizing the applicant's decision to put the children first rather than pursue other financial strategies, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This trial decision addresses disputes over the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court determined the separation date as May 1, 2013, rejecting the applicant's earlier claim due to inconsistent actions like marriage counselling and joint debt renewal.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $21,802 for equalization and $1,168 for retroactive child support, with RRSP withdrawals included in Line 150 income for support calculations.

The matrimonial home was ordered partitioned and sold, and joint custody of the remaining child was granted.

Claims for spousal support, rental income, and occupation rent were dismissed.