Gillian Shute

The parties separated and sought a determination on custody, access, and child care expenses for their two-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that the parties had a history of poor communication, hostility, and an inability to cooperate on decisions regarding the child, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the mother, with a detailed access schedule for the father.

The father was also ordered to pay $100 per month for child care provided by the maternal grandmother, and a mutual restraining order was replaced with a reciprocal non-harassment order.

In a custody dispute between separated parents, the court addressed competing motions following the mother's arrest on assault charges and the father's pre-emptive reclamation of their four-year-old child.

The mother sought residential care while the father sought shared 50/50 custody and decision-making.

The court found that the parties had previously agreed to shared care arrangements and ordered a temporary shared custody arrangement with alternating weekly care, Friday visits with paternal grandparents, and mid-week access, pending further proceedings.

In a family trial addressing support and equalization, the court finalized an earlier interim judgment after receiving further evidence on valuation-day net family property calculations.

The court accepted the moving party’s revised RRSP valuation and explanation for prior inconsistent financial statements, and accepted the responding party’s stated separation-date debts and liabilities.

Using those accepted figures, the court recalculated net family property and fixed a higher equalization payment than in the interim order.

The court made final orders for ongoing monthly spousal support, annual reciprocal income disclosure, retroactive support, and the recalculated equalization payment.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that a child was in need of protection and requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The father brought a concurrent motion for custody.

The mother opposed both motions.

The court found that the child suffered emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of alienating the child from the father, withholding access contrary to court orders, coaching the child to make false abuse allegations, and failing to address the child's medical and developmental needs.

The court granted both motions, placing the child in the sole custody of the father with specified access to the mother, and terminated the father's child support obligation.