Hélène C. Desormeau

The parties separated in 2019 after a 19-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and an equalization payment, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and spousal support.

The court found that the father had engaged in coercive control and family violence, making joint decision-making impossible, and awarded sole decision-making to the mother.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed his claim for spousal support.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $178,615.79, along with reimbursements for joint expenses and a penalty for failing to disclose his pension valuation.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The court acquitted the accused of assault, finding her actions were reflexive and lacked the necessary mens rea.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and breach of probation, concluding that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea for sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent due to the use of force and lack of reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

This two-day focused trial addressed financial issues between common-law ex-spouses, including the valuation and division of the jointly owned family home, repayment of mortgage interest, determination of each party's income for support purposes, and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court upheld a prior consent order regarding the property's valuation formula but awarded the applicant pre- and post-judgment interest due to the respondent's delay in payout.

The court imputed income to the applicant for her dog-breeding business for one year but declined to impute income to the respondent for his farm work.

Child and spousal support were determined based on the parties' incomes, with spousal support being compensatory and subject to review.

The respondent's claim for mortgage interest repayment and the right of first refusal were dismissed.

In an addendum to a judgment on a motion to change, the court determined the exact quantum of a child support overpayment and addressed costs.

The court found the father overpaid $6,168.20 but reduced the repayment obligation to $1,500 due to the mother's financial hardship and the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide financial disclosure.

Despite the father's success on the child support issue, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the father's bad faith non-disclosure.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for two First Nations children with special needs.

The children were removed from their father's care following disclosures of inappropriate touching, though the court could not conclude on a balance of probabilities that the father was the perpetrator.

The court found the children in need of protection due to a failure to provide treatment, emotional harm, and risk of emotional harm stemming from the parents' residential instability, the mother's unaddressed alcohol addiction, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care, finding that neither parent nor the maternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

Specified access was granted to both parents and the children's First Nations band.

In a child protection proceeding, the Society sought to introduce 45 out-of-court statements made by two children to various individuals, including social workers, a foster mother, a teacher, and therapists.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of these hearsay statements.

The court found that it was reasonably necessary to admit the statements without requiring the children to testify, given their age, special needs, and history of trauma.

Applying the principled approach and traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule, the court assessed the threshold reliability of each statement.

Ultimately, the court admitted some statements for the truth of their contents, some for the children's state of mind, some for narrative, and excluded others where the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value or threshold reliability was not met.

On a motion to change, the court addressed both parenting and support after a lengthy estrangement between the child and the father following the father's catastrophic brain injury.

Applying the variation and best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court accepted an assessment recommending that any relationship rebuilding proceed cautiously and only at the child’s discretion, supported by periodic child-appropriate videos reviewed with a mental health professional.

On child support, the court held that the original order was not under appeal, but the father's regained financial competency in 2016 and subsequent non-disclosure constituted a material change and blameworthy conduct justifying retroactive variation from June 1, 2016.

The court rejected including the full structured settlement as income, instead attributing 3.2% of it as income replacement, grossed up, together with SABS, CPP, rental income and modest imputed investment income, and directed further calculations to quantify arrears.

The court also modified the section 7 regime and ordered support security through estate charge, insurance inquiries, and an irrevocable direction respecting the guaranteed portion of the structured settlement.

The Husband brought a motion to amend his application to withdraw admissions regarding the interpretation of a marriage contract.

The Wife brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of counselling records for a section 30 assessment, interim sole decision-making responsibility for healthcare, and disclosure of rental platform records.

The court refused to allow the Husband to withdraw his admissions but permitted him to plead an alternate interpretation.

The court ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of counselling records if requested by the assessor, declined to grant the Wife interim sole decision-making responsibility but made specific orders for the children's healthcare, and ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of rental platform records.

On a motion to change, the moving party sought retroactive termination of child support for an adult child and repayment of alleged overpayments on the basis that the child was no longer a child of the marriage or was not attending school full-time.

The court found a material change in circumstances where the adult child moved out of the responding party's home for a substantial period and was receiving ODSP, but held the evidence still established school enrollment and attendance for the remainder of the relevant period despite poor academic performance and delayed disclosure.

The court ordered repayment of only a portion of the claimed overpayment, fixed at $7,620.00, payable in monthly installments.

The responding party's request for a restraining order and claims for unpaid and future tuition were dismissed, and her newly raised support variation claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court also ordered re-filing of income tax returns to properly report spousal support.

In a child protection proceeding, the father brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order to have the children placed in his care.

The children had previously been placed in the interim care of the Society after being removed from the mother's care.

The court applied the test for varying a temporary placement order, finding that the father's consistent and positive access, along with his viable plan for the children's care, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to Society supervision and a gradual integration plan, while maintaining the mother's access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return, while the father sought a graduated access plan.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm in the mother's care due to her escalating mental health issues, paranoid behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with the Society.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing the children in temporary Society care with access at the Society's discretion.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

Following a motion regarding a section 71 Land Titles Act Notice and a cross-motion for a restraining order, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs.

The court noted divided success and problematic conduct by both parties, including the applicant's non-disclosure and the respondent's improper registration of the notice on title.

Ultimately, the court awarded costs of $5,000 to the applicant, finding it to be a fair, reasonable, and proportional amount.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The sexual assault involved forced non-consensual intercourse where the offender failed to stop despite the victim's pleas.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the violent nature of the offence against the offender's limited criminal record and personal circumstances.

The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months' incarceration, comprising 23 months for the sexual assault and 1 month consecutive for the assault, followed by 12 months of probation.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time based on unverified allegations of abuse, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father, who was wholly successful, sought costs for the motion and numerous related appearances.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's behaviour reasonable and his time spent proportionate to the serious nature of the allegations.

The court also found the father's offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome, triggering Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable by the mother, subject to a set-off against previous costs owed by the father.

The husband sought to remove s.71 notices registered by the wife on his farm properties, arguing that an equalization claim does not create an interest in land.

The wife opposed the removal and sought a restraining (preservation) order under s.12 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that s.71 notices were improperly registered for an equalization claim, which is a monetary claim, not a proprietary interest in land.

Consequently, the s.71 notices were ordered discharged.

However, due to the husband's non-disclosure in Farm Debt Mediation and delays in financial disclosure, the court granted the wife's request for a restraining (preservation) order under s.12 FLA to protect her potential equalization payment.

In a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court found that two children continued to be in need of protection based on a real risk of serious emotional harm arising from repeated exposure to domestic conflict and the parents’ failure to protect them from that conflict.

The court rejected the society’s theory of protection based on alleged illicit drug use and school attendance, but accepted that inconsistent parental involvement, prolonged gaps in access, and failure to comply with safety planning reinforced the continued need for protection.

The court found the mother’s late-stage plan, based on residence with extended family and recent treatment engagement, was untested, not sufficiently child-focused, and did not adequately mitigate the identified risks.

Extended Society Care with the maternal aunt was ordered, together with structured access for the mother and discretionary access for the fathers.

The court also made a First Nations finding in relation to one child and addressed the implications of that status under the CYFSA.

The mother brought a motion to suspend or restrict the father's access to their two children, alleging physical and sexual abuse by the father.

The court reviewed the admissibility of various hearsay statements, children's disclosures, and business records, including Children's Aid Society files.

The court found that the mother failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, as the abuse allegations were inconclusive following police and CAS investigations.

The court noted that supervised access visits had been positive and the children were safe in the father's care.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the court ordered a gradual reintegration of the father's unsupervised access in accordance with a prior order.

Following a motion regarding custody, access, and child support, the respondent father sought costs.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be payable.

The court found that the father was substantially successful on the access and child support issues, while the mother was only successful on the minor issue of shared transportation.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the mother's argument of divided success and awarded costs to the father on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,405.76.

The accused, Barou Mbuyamba, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on tertiary grounds following an initial bail hearing.

The accused was charged with 69 counts related to importing and possessing firearms and prohibited devices.

The review considered whether there was an error of law or a material change in circumstances, specifically the introduction of an electronic monitoring plan and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the new electronic monitoring plan and the accused's 41 days in custody.

Applying a flexible approach to the Palmer test, the court reassessed the bail on secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court found the proposed release plan, including a strong residential surety, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address tertiary ground concerns, and that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was released on a recognizance with conditions.