Garav Gill

A family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, and related issues for a child born to parents who separated when the child was eight months old.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility over health and education, while the respondent sought joint decision-making with tie-breaking authority.

The court found a pattern of coercive control and poor communication by the respondent, resulting in an order granting the applicant sole decision-making responsibility over health and education, with joint responsibility over culture and extracurricular activities.

The court maintained the existing parenting time schedule (approximately 40% with the respondent), imputed income to both parties, and ordered child support with a net offset.

The court also determined that private school tuition was not a section 7 expense and ordered retroactive support calculations.

This was an uncontested family law trial addressing parenting, child support, and equalization.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority and primary custody, citing concerns about the respondent mother's strict adherence to the Brahma Kumaris organization and its perceived negative impact on their son's development, as well as her stated intention to leave the country for an extended period.

The court granted the father final decision-making authority and primary custody, finding the mother's beliefs concerning and her planned absence fortifying this decision.

The court declined to impute income to the mother for child support, concluding she was genuinely unable to work due to mental health reasons.

An equalization payment was ordered in favour of the father, to be paid from the mother's share of the matrimonial home proceeds upon sale, despite her non-disclosure.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to change a 2010 order, which resulted in a significant reduction of his support arrears and an increase in ongoing child support.

This endorsement addresses the father's request for costs.

The court found the father to be the overall successful party, particularly on the dominant issue of arrears reduction, and noted the mother's unreasonable conduct in failing to timely disclose relevant information to the Family Responsibility Office.

Despite both parties' offers to settle not meeting the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court exercised its discretion, considering the father's reasonable conduct and the mother's unreasonable actions.

The mother was ordered to pay the father's costs, fixed at $4,500.