Harjyot Kaur Dhaliwal

The applicant mother brought a motion for shared parenting of the parties' three-year-old child following the tragic drowning death of their younger child.

After the accident, the respondent father unilaterally assumed sole care of the surviving child and restricted the mother to supervised parenting time, alleging she was responsible for the death and was an unfit parent.

The court relied on evidence from a Children's Aid Society worker who investigated the family and found no child protection concerns regarding the mother.

The court strongly criticized the father's resort to self-help and his derogation of the mother, ultimately granting the mother's motion for primary care during the week with the father having weekend parenting time.

The applicant brought a motion to disqualify the respondents' counsel, Lockyer + Hein LLP, on the basis of a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant in related litigation concerning the governance of a not-for-profit corporation.

The court found that the current application was sufficiently related to the prior matters, that there was a realistic possibility the law firm possessed relevant confidential information, and that acting against the former client breached the duty of loyalty.

The motion to disqualify counsel was granted.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's motion to change a final order, citing delay and non-compliance.

The applicant's motion to change initially sought changes to custody, access, and child support, but most issues became moot due to the children's ages and living arrangements.

The court declined to stay or dismiss the motion, finding it was not oppressive or vexatious, and that both parties had contributed to disclosure issues.

The court determined child support arrears owed by the respondent to the applicant for 2015-2018 to be $8,288, with 2014 arrears requiring a trial of an issue.

The respondent's request to compel production of an order and to prohibit future motions by the applicant was denied, as was the applicant's request to change driving arrangements.

The applicant brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated November 18, 2011, seeking clarification on two issues: arrears of child support and the fixing of income for the purposes of calculating child support under a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent sought to impute income to the applicant at $80,000, arguing she was intentionally underemployed.

The court declined to impute income at that level and instead set the applicant's income at $45,000 for the purposes of section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, considering her employment history, retraining efforts, caregiving responsibilities, and the manner in which the parties had structured their separation agreement.