Jeffrey Behrendt

The parties submitted a consent order on a Motion to Change child support and parenting terms.

The court required clarification on whether the order was made under the federal Divorce Act or provincial legislation, as the new Family Law Rules Form 25 requires the legislation to be specified.

After reviewing the historical pleadings and previous orders, the court determined that the original 2013 final order was made under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act because it predated the divorce order.

The court amended the 2013 order nunc pro tunc to reflect this and signed the new consent order specifying the provincial legislation.

Following a five-day family law trial regarding custody and extracurricular activities where the applicant father was successful, he sought costs of $123,063.07.

The respondent mother argued each party should bear their own costs due to her financial hardship and willingness to settle other issues prior to trial.

The court declined to award costs for steps prior to September 2019 where costs were not reserved, but found the father presumptively entitled to costs for the trial.

Balancing the father's success against the mother's pre-trial settlement efforts and financial hardship, the court awarded the father $60,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, payable in 24 monthly instalments.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding following a 25-year marriage.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce claim from corollary issues, which was dismissed as he failed to prove the applicant would not be disadvantaged regarding health benefits.

Due to ongoing disclosure disputes, the court ordered a structured process for both parties to exchange missing financial information.

The applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

However, the court found a prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support based on compensatory and non-compensatory factors, ordering the respondent to pay $2,587.50 per month.

The respondent was also ordered on consent to designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his infant son, while the respondent mother argued that supervised access should continue due to allegations of abuse, concerns about the child’s distress during visits, and fears of international abduction.

The court reviewed evidence from supervised access program notes and found the father cooperative, capable, and receptive to guidance in caring for the child.

The court found no objective evidence supporting allegations that the father posed a risk of harm or that he intended to abduct the child.

The respondent’s concerns were not supported by admissible evidence, and her conduct had contributed to the termination of supervised access services.

The court concluded that continued supervised access was not in the child’s best interests and ordered a structured transition to unsupervised access, with incremental increases in parenting time.