Hunter Phillips

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, arguing that equal division would be unconscionable because he brought the fully-owned matrimonial home into the short marriage.

The court valued several disputed assets, including a bush lot and a contingent interest in property.

The court concluded that full equalization would be unconscionable given the short marriage and the disparity in pre-marriage assets, ordering the applicant to pay 80% of the calculated equalization amount.

This decision addresses the terms of a father's access to his two young children following separation, with a separate decision to follow on property and equalization issues.

The court considered two OCL reports, which highlighted parental rigidity and the need for a gradual increase in the father's access, coupled with specific safety measures at his home.

The court established a detailed, staged access schedule for the father, gradually increasing overnight access for both children, and imposed conditions on the father regarding home safety (gating wood stoves, car seat inspection, proper sleeping arrangements) and communication.

The court criticized the mother for unduly limiting access and encouraging a child's dependency, and the father for his stubbornness in addressing safety recommendations.

The applicant sought to vary child and spousal support provisions of a separation agreement and to impute income to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change of circumstances and seeking to impute income to the applicant.

The court found a material change of circumstances due to the applicant's career change and significant income reduction.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $58,000 for 2014-2016, increasing to $73,000 for 2017, finding his decision to start a business without experience unreasonable.

The court also imputed income to the respondent at $20,000 for 2017, finding her under-employed.

Retroactive and ongoing support adjustments were ordered based on these imputed incomes.