Golnaz Sara Simaei

This ruling addresses the Applicant's motion and the Respondent's cross-motion concerning financial disclosure, refused undertakings, and non-party disclosure from the Applicant's father.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the extensive requests from both parties as irrelevant or disproportionate "fishing expeditions." Limited disclosure was granted, primarily related to the Respondent's income and specific non-party financial information (laptop receipt, credit card statements) from the Applicant's father, while other requests were deemed unnecessary or an invasion of privacy.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order granted on an unopposed 14B motion, arguing that the court granted the order prematurely, before the expiry of the response period under the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the original order could not stand due to procedural irregularity.

Alternatively, applying the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the respondent moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and an arguable case on the merits regarding unresolved parenting issues and the binding nature of the minutes of settlement.

The original order was set aside, and a case conference was ordered.

A custody and access trial concerning two children following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant alleged the respondent posed safety risks and sought supervised access, while the respondent alleged parental alienation and sought custody.

The court found the applicant had engaged in persistent conduct undermining the children’s relationship with the respondent, including numerous unsubstantiated allegations and interference with contact.

Applying the best interests test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained the children’s primary residence with the applicant but implemented expanded access for the respondent and reunification counselling for one child.

The order was framed as temporary pending resolution of financial issues and a possible updated report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following successful motions regarding the respondent's breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed fees by 15% for unrelated services but ordered the respondent to pay $47,328.90 in costs immediately, rejecting his request to pay from the future sale of the matrimonial home.