Jessie Jean Nabuurs

On competing family law motions concerning a child’s medical care and dietary management, the court found a material change in circumstances based on escalating parental conflict and ongoing medical uncertainty affecting effective decision-making.

The court held that the dietary term in prior Minutes of Settlement remained binding unless varied, and that unilateral non-compliance was impermissible despite disagreement about continued necessity.

Applying best-interests principles under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act, the court ordered an interim framework requiring continued gluten- and dairy-free compliance, detailed dietary/symptom tracking, and coordinated physician-led referrals through the child’s family doctor.

The child was ordered to remain on a tertiary clinic wait list pending medical recommendations or further order.

Both the motion and cross-motion were granted in part, with all other relief dismissed and no costs awarded.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial.

The applicant, Kristen Geuze, sought costs after being the successful party on issues of primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The respondent, Rhyan Aaron Beal, did not make submissions on costs.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle was reasonable and should have been accepted, while the respondent's positions were unreasonable.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a scale greater than partial indemnity but less than substantial indemnity, with a modest reduction for administrative duplication.

The applicant and respondent separated after a high-conflict incident.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of their three children, and child support.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found the respondent's aggressive behaviour and inability to communicate effectively precluded joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the applicant, granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, and ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support.