Gerry V. Shaffer

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a prior court order requiring the respondent to either reinstate her on his health benefits plan, provide independent confirmation of her ineligibility, or pay her $8,000.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide the required independent confirmation to the applicant or her counsel by the court-ordered deadline.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $8,000 forthwith, plus post-judgment interest.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed as the applicant's motion was successful and not vexatious.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking regular unsupervised parenting time with the parties’ children following separation.

The respondent mother opposed overnight access and requested that the father’s contact occur only in her presence due to allegations of abusive and aggressive behaviour.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and considered the factors in s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Although the evidence included conflicting allegations and credibility concerns, child protection investigations had not identified safety risks.

The court concluded that supervision was not warranted and ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time leading to alternate weekends and mid‑week overnights.