Justice R. F. MacLeod

The applicant mother sought primary care, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the parties' three-year-old child, citing the respondent father's ongoing drug addiction.

The father sought shared parenting and tendered a forged negative hair follicle drug test during the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding the father lacked stability and a viable financial plan.

The father's parenting time was ordered to be supervised until he could prove he was free of street drugs.

Child support was imputed to the father starting in 2023, and he was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to his egregious litigation conduct.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2015 and sought a divorce, parenting orders, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent engaged in a campaign of parental alienation, repeatedly breaching court orders and undermining the applicant's relationship with the children.

The applicant was granted decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule, while the respondent was found in contempt of court.

No retroactive or ongoing Guideline child support was ordered, but the parties were ordered to share special expenses equally.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $62,250.

The mother brought a motion to change to implement child and spousal support formulas based on the father's significantly increased income, which reached $2.29 million in 2019.

The father argued the table amount for child support was inappropriate under section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and sought to vary the spousal support order to exclude the mother from sharing in his post-separation income increase.

The court found the table amount for child support was inappropriate as it would result in an unwarranted capital transfer, capping the father's income for child support purposes at $500,000.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to vary spousal support, finding the increase in his income did not constitute a material change sufficient to warrant varying the existing consent order.

The parties, who shared joint custody of their 10-year-old child, disagreed on whether the child should attend school in person or online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The moving party father sought an order for in-person attendance, while the responding party mother preferred online schooling due to fears of COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied the factors from Zinati v. Spence, noting the child had no underlying health risks and the statistical risk of severe illness from COVID-19 for children was extremely low.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the child to attend in-person schooling, with no order as to costs.