Ian Carter

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, spousal support, and division of property.

The parties have three children, two of whom have disabilities, with one requiring a life-support machine.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support, retroactive child support, a fixed monthly amount for Section 7 expenses, and ongoing spousal support.

The claim for pension division was deferred pending an expert valuation report.

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt for failing to facilitate his parenting time under a 2018 order.

The mother argued she had a legitimate excuse because the child was extremely resistant to attending the father's home, and police had declined to force the child to go.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the order by failing to bring a motion to change the parenting schedule sooner, it exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than make a formal finding of contempt, noting contempt is a remedy of last resort.

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for interim exclusive possession.

The parties had been separated for several years, and the respondent had resided in the home since 2014.

The court found that the respondent did not meet the test for exclusive possession under section 24(3) of the Family Law Act, as there were no dependent children and no evidence of alternate accommodation unavailability.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the home, noting that a claim for permanent exclusive possession was unrealistic and there was no valid reason to delay the sale.

The accused applied for a bail review after initially being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the accused's completion of a conditional sentence, his testimony regarding his time in custody, and a significantly strengthened release plan involving three sureties and GPS monitoring.

Conducting a hearing de novo, the court concluded that the strict release plan mitigated the substantial likelihood of reoffending.

Furthermore, considering the accused's membership in a vulnerable population under s. 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code, detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was ordered released on strict conditions.