Harvison Young

The applicant mother brought a motion to amend her application to add a civil conspiracy claim against the respondent father and his new wife, alleging they structured their financial affairs to hide the father's income and assets to avoid child support obligations.

She also sought to add the new wife and her corporations as parties, obtain financial disclosure from them, and obtain an order for interim child support and arrears.

The father claimed his only income was a $14,000 disability pension, but the mother provided evidence of a lavish lifestyle and his active involvement in the new wife's businesses.

The court allowed the amendments and the addition of the parties, finding the threshold for amending pleadings was met and the limitation period issue regarding the conspiracy claim was a triable issue of discoverability.

The court ordered full disclosure and ordered the father to pay $1,500 per month in interim child support, fixing arrears at $94,300 and section 7 arrears at $44,000, based on the unvaried 2005 Minutes of Settlement.

Following an uncontested family law trial between long‑term unmarried cohabitants, the court addressed claims for unjust enrichment, lump‑sum spousal support, and a vesting order over the respondent’s real property.

The applicant had provided extensive caregiving and domestic services to the respondent during the final years of the 21‑year relationship while he suffered cognitive decline.

Applying the principles from Kerr v. Baranow, the court found the respondent had been unjustly enriched and awarded quantum meruit damages for the caregiving services.

The court also found entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act due to the long duration of cohabitation, economic disparity, and the applicant’s financial hardship, awarding a lump sum support payment.

A conditional vesting order was granted permitting sale of the respondent’s property if the judgment was not satisfied within 45 days.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance for litigation expenses following a long marriage and separation.

The respondent opposed entitlement, argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed, and sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s cohabiting partner while also requesting his own advance for costs.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to support arising from the traditional marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Due to the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure necessary for an expert income report, the court accepted an interim income figure including an added-back amount for business expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to account for contributions from the applicant’s cohabiting partner, while both parties’ requests for advance costs were dismissed and the disclosure request adjourned.

In a high-conflict family dispute, both parents brought competing motions seeking sole custody of two children and changes to an interim parenting arrangement.

The father sought sole custody or expanded decision-making authority and restoration of mid‑week overnight parenting time that the mother had unilaterally terminated.

The mother sought sole custody and elimination of weekday overnights, arguing the arrangement caused stress and behavioural regression for one child.

The court emphasized the strong presumption of maintaining the status quo on interim custody and access motions absent compelling evidence affecting the children’s best interests.

Finding the evidence contradictory and largely untested, and noting the longstanding de facto arrangement of weekday overnights with the father, the court declined to change custody and restored the previous access schedule.

Following a four-day family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in establishing the respondent's income at a higher level for support purposes and achieved some success regarding private school tuition.

However, she was unsuccessful in her claim for an unequal division of family property.

The court found that success was divided and that the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, significantly increasing the time and costs of the matter.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following a family law motion concerning access to children of the marriage, the successful party sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court considered the factors in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the time expended, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The court found that the unsuccessful party engaged in egregious and unreasonable conduct that repeatedly frustrated the other parent’s access and marginalized the parental relationship.

Full recovery costs were justified to sanction this conduct.

The court awarded $12,000 in costs and ordered that the award be set off against child support if unpaid by a specified date.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage during which they worked together in a successful band.

The applicant's health deteriorated due to multiple sclerosis, constituting a material change in circumstances from their separation agreement.

The applicant sought spousal support of approximately $1,400 per month, while the respondent argued for $700, citing the applicant's dissipation of her capital through gambling and poor financial decisions.

The court admitted Facebook receipts showing the applicant's online gambling, imputed $2,000 in investment income to her due to reckless dissipation of assets, and ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support based on his transitional income and ongoing support of their adult children.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking various relief after the applicant mother unilaterally cancelled their daughter's First Communion and denied access.

The mother argued that the Minutes of Settlement were not enforceable because a formal order had not been taken out.

The court rejected this argument, finding the mother's conduct shocking and indicative of a systematic attempt to marginalize the father.

The court granted the father's requests to reschedule the Communion, ordered police enforcement for access, issued a non-disparagement order, permitted the father to provide the children with cell phones, ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the cancelled event's costs, and granted make-up access.

The applicants sought exclusion of cash and cocaine seized during execution of a search warrant, alleging breaches of s. 8 of the Charter and arguing that the warrant was invalid because the redacted Information to Obtain relied heavily on confidential informer information.

The Crown invoked the Garofoli “Step Six” procedure, providing a judicial summary of redacted material so the reviewing judge could consider the unredacted ITO while preserving informer privilege.

The court held that the Step Six procedure was appropriate because the defence was sufficiently aware of the nature of the excised material to challenge it.

After excising minor inaccuracies and amplifying certain information, the court concluded that the authorizing justice could reasonably have issued the warrant under the Debot framework based on a compelling tip and corroborative police investigation.

Even if the warrant had been invalid, the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter given the absence of police misconduct and the importance of the real evidence seized.

Following convictions after trial for multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against young children in a position of trust, the court determined the appropriate global sentence and addressed a constitutional challenge concerning pre‑sentence custody credit.

The offender argued that applying the Truth in Sentencing Act to limit enhanced credit would violate s. 11(i) of the Charter because the offences were committed before the Act came into force.

The court held that pre‑sentence custody constitutes “punishment” for the purposes of s. 11(i) and that retroactive application of the Act would increase the punishment by eliminating the then‑usual practice of granting 2:1 credit.

The relevant provisions of the Act were therefore declared of no force and effect as applied to the offender.

A global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was imposed with credit for pre‑sentence custody at a 2:1 ratio.

Following a seven‑day family law trial addressing equalization, spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, and custody, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Success at trial was mixed; however, the applicant achieved greater overall success, including on equalization and entitlement to ongoing spousal support and retroactive child support.

The court also considered the respondent’s conduct, including advancing irrelevant evidence that extended the length of the trial, though acknowledging the challenges faced by a self‑represented litigant.

Balancing the mixed results and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $8,500 in costs as support.