Gerald Stotland

The court heard two motions concerning interim custody, access, child support arrears, and other family law issues.

The Applicant sought an interim access schedule, interim custodial decision-making, police enforcement for access, dietary requirements for children, child support arrears of $980,000, ongoing child support, security for costs, and fixing questioning.

The Respondent sought joint custody, a specific care calendar, no school changes without consent, communication freedom for children, a declaration of the separation agreement's validity, refund of legal costs, and full indemnity costs.

The court found that neither party was successful on the major issues, concluding that success was evenly divided.

Both parties made unreasonable demands or proposals.

The court declined to make any order for costs, noting that nothing significant was accomplished beyond the expenditure of large legal fees, and encouraged the parties to prepare for trial.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking interim access, sole custodial decision-making, police enforcement for access, adherence to children's diet, child support arrears, ongoing child support, security for costs, and questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for joint custody, a specific care schedule, no school changes without consent, free communication with children, validation of their Separation Agreement, and legal costs.

The court found the Separation Agreement ambiguous regarding child support calculations for high-income earners, dismissing the Applicant's claim for arrears and security for costs, noting these issues required further evidence.

The court granted sole custody to the Applicant, finding joint decision-making impractical due to high parental conflict, and established an interim access schedule for the Respondent.

The request for the Respondent to adhere to the children's specific dietary regime was denied due to insufficient medical evidence.

Questioning was ordered to proceed.

The applicant father was successful on interim custody motions and sought costs.

Despite the presumption of costs for the successful party under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to award costs.

The court noted the significant financial disparity between the parties, as the applicant is a high-earning physician and the respondent is a full-time student financially dependent on him.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.