John Schuman

The father applied for a protective separation and sole decision-making authority to repair his relationship with his two children, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviours and failed to authentically support the children's relationship with their father.

The court ordered a 90-day protective separation during which the children will reside solely with the father and have no contact with the mother.

The father and children were ordered to participate in the Turning Points for Families intensive reunification program.

The mother's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the jointly owned home was dismissed, and various financial and child support orders were made.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change his child and spousal support obligations following a 2018 trial decision.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the children entering and exiting post-secondary studies in the United States.

The court determined the appropriate section 7 expenses, calculated the respondent's income using a pre-tax corporate income approach, and continued to impute $50,000 in income to the applicant.

The court declined to adjust the spousal support payable to account for the fact that the applicant, having relocated to the United States, no longer paid tax on spousal support, finding the respondent was no worse off and the applicant remained entitled to high-end support.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision that used final offer selection to determine child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant argued that the process was contrary to law because it was ill-suited for multiple issues, lacked sworn testimony and cross-examination, and the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that family law arbitrations are not required to mirror court processes, the parties were treated equally and fairly, and the arbitrator's reasons were sufficient.