Jelena Buac

This decision reviews previous custody and access orders following a finding of parental alienation by the respondent mother.

Despite the mother's continued uncooperative and alienating behavior, which has exacerbated the children's severe anxiety and resistance to contact with the applicant father, the court declined to transfer sole custody to the father.

The court maintained shared custody with primary residence with the mother, citing the children's fragile mental health, the ongoing pandemic, and the recent birth of a new child to the applicant and his partner.

The court ordered comprehensive, long-term therapeutic interventions for the children, the mother, and the father, with a designated case manager to oversee the process, emphasizing the paramountcy of the children's best interests.

The applicant, M.P.M., sought costs on a full recovery basis after being largely successful on parenting issues in a fiercely contested trial.

The respondent, A.L.M., opposed, arguing mixed success and seeking costs in her favour.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith regarding custody and access issues, justifying full recovery costs for those aspects.

However, the applicant's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for presumptive full recovery, and costs for earlier steps where no orders were made were disallowed.

The court also considered the respondent's impecuniosity but found it did not shield her from the consequences of her bad faith conduct.

A cost award of $70,000 for fees and $8,160.20 for disbursements plus HST was ordered in favour of the applicant.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' two children, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother following their separation.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and restricted access for the father.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a systematic and vindictive campaign of 'pure alienation' to destroy the children's relationship with their father, largely motivated by his new romantic relationship.

Despite finding that a reversal of custody would normally be warranted, the court ordered shared custody with a strict, progressive access schedule and mandatory therapy for the mother, citing the unprecedented uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also resolved outstanding financial issues including child support arrears and equalization.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for the children to be in his care and for the mother to have no access, alleging parental alienation.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, claiming the father's abusive behavior and new relationship caused the estrangement.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the mother's role in encouraging access and the father's alleged abuse.

Citing the need for a full trial to make factual determinations, the court dismissed both motions for temporary changes to custody/access.

The children are to remain with the mother, and both parents are to share joint decision-making responsibility for choosing an independent healthcare professional to assess and recommend therapy to foster a positive relationship between the children and the father.

The applicant sought a one-half interest in the respondent's pension from the start of their cohabitation in 1991, arguing unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The respondent contended the applicant was only entitled to a share accumulated during their marriage (2012-2014).

The court found no unjust enrichment or joint family venture prior to marriage, noting separate finances, the respondent's self-funded education, and the applicant's limited contributions to household and childcare responsibilities after becoming unemployed.

The applicant's claim for a pre-marital pension share was dismissed, but he was awarded a lump sum representing half the pension value accumulated during the marriage.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim custody and an interim parenting schedule, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody and a flexible schedule based on his work travel.

The court emphasized the children's need for stability and predictability, finding that the father's proposal sacrificed certainty for his employment schedule.

The court ordered the temporary parenting schedule proposed by the mother, noting that the father's employment should be flexible to accommodate his parental responsibilities.