John Noonan

The mother appealed a trial decision in a high-conflict parenting dispute, which had resulted in an order for joint custody with parallel decision-making authority and equal parenting time.

The trial judge had rejected the mother's allegations against the father and the OCL's recommendation for sole custody to the mother.

The mother alleged errors regarding hearsay evidence, consideration of children's wishes, application of the maximum contact principle, the trial judge's jurisdiction to vary prior orders, and the award of costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's factual findings, assessment of evidence, or application of legal principles.

The court affirmed that OCL recommendations are not binding, the maximum contact principle does not mandate equal parenting time, and a trial judge has broad jurisdiction to make final parenting orders, not being bound by interlocutory orders.

The costs award against the mother was upheld due to her unreasonable conduct during the litigation.

The parties separated after the respondent mother left the family home with the children to a women's shelter, alleging the applicant father was abusive and a threat due to his rigid religious beliefs.

Following an 18-day trial, the court rejected the mother's allegations of abuse and neglect, finding the father to be a competent and involved parent.

The court declined to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which had suggested sole custody for the mother and restricted access for the father.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly schedule.

Due to the parties' inability to communicate, the court ordered parallel decision-making, granting the father authority over medical decisions and the mother authority over education.

Finally, the court imputed income to the underemployed father based on his historical earnings as a counsellor for the purpose of calculating child support.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel suspending their Master Electrician and Electrical Contractor licences for 90 days.

The Review Panel found the appellants breached several rules of the Electrical Safety Code, including failing to obtain inspection permits, failing to obtain authorization to reconnect power, installing incorrect equipment, and charging grossly excessive fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Review Panel's interpretation of the Code was reasonable, the appellants had sufficient notice of the allegations against them, and the remaining issues were questions of fact over which the court had no jurisdiction.