Jain

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for spousal support, arguing she had grossly repudiated their 50-year common law relationship by placing him in a long-term care facility.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and utilized its fact-finding powers under Rule 16 to determine the spousal support claim on a final basis.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's conduct was unconscionable under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Finding the applicant entitled to support, the court ordered the respondent to pay $722 per month in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of up to $16,510.66 following a contempt motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, while the respondent sought $5,000 in costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court noted that there was mixed success on the motions and neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that her modest financial means should justify a costs award against the wealthier respondent.

Given the mixed success and findings sanctioning both parties' behaviour, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage, leading to a high-conflict custody dispute over their three children.

The applicant mother alleged the respondent father severely alienated the children against her, while the father claimed the estrangement was the mother's fault.

Relying on a jointly retained section 30 assessor, the court found the father had engaged in severe parental alienation, constituting emotional abuse.

To serve the children's best interests, the court ordered a temporary reversal of custody for the two youngest children to the mother, mandated reintegration therapy, and implemented a step-up plan culminating in shared parenting.

The eldest child was permitted to determine her own residence.

The court also resolved outstanding financial issues including child support, section 7 expenses, and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant brought a motion for a final order noting the respondent in default and seeking relief on parenting, child support, and property division.

The respondent had failed to comply with previous orders to file materials.

The court refused to grant further extensions and proceeded with the motion.

The court made a temporary order for unsupervised access, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support in accordance with the Guidelines (rejecting his unpled undue hardship claim), enforced a trust agreement regarding the sale proceeds of their home, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of the payments she made on a joint loan.

The applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for sole custody and specified access based on a settlement reached at a settlement conference.

The respondent father opposed the motion, denying an agreement was reached and arguing that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommendations were vague and circumstances had changed.

The court found that an enforceable agreement was reached at the settlement conference and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, awarding sole custody to the mother and specified access to the father in accordance with the OCL recommendations, finding it to be in the best interests of the child.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the enforcement of a 2017 consent order requiring the sale of three assets: a jointly owned cottage, and the respondent's business and commercial property.

The applicant sought the appointment of a Receiver/Manager to sell all three assets due to the respondent's alleged failure to sell them.

The court declined to appoint a receiver for the cottage, ordering the applicant to list it immediately.

However, the court appointed a Receiver/Manager for the business and commercial property, finding special circumstances existed because the applicant had no other means to force the sale and the respondent lacked incentive to sell.

The Society brought a motion for a temporary care order to place the child in the care of the paternal grandmother, with supervised access for the parents.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the parents due to ongoing conflict and volatility.

The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother but directed the Society to immediately expand the parents' supervised access, with a structured plan to progress to unsupervised access if conditions were met.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the deemed joint custody of the parents, with primary residence to the father.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the child's chronic school absenteeism while in the mother's care and the mother's lack of insight into the emotional harm caused by the absenteeism and parental conflict.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering primary residence to the father with specified access to the mother.