Justin Dugald Clark

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody and primary residence of the children, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, alleging the respondent mother's uncontrolled alcoholism posed a risk to the children.

The motion was heard during the Covid-19 pandemic via videoconference.

The court dismissed the father's requests for sole custody and exclusive possession, finding he failed to establish that the mother's alcoholism was uncontrolled or posed a risk.

The court also ruled that surreptitious surveillance evidence was inadmissible due to public policy against such practices in family law.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody and week-about access, and provided extensive commentary on the need for parties and counsel to adopt a less litigious and more cooperative approach, especially during the pandemic.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs following a motion where the husband sought leave to bring a further motion for disclosure concerning the wife’s income from a family trust pursuant to an earlier court order.

The husband argued he was successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The wife and the family trust contended that the leave granted was significantly narrower than the broad disclosure sought in the husband’s motion materials and argued they should receive costs.

The court determined that the issue of costs should be reserved to the judge hearing the forthcoming disclosure motion, who would be best positioned to assess the scope and outcome of the disclosure request.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order dated March 11, 2010, seeking termination of child support for an adult child who had completed university studies, initiation of child support from the mother for another adult child attending university, and a contribution toward special expenses.

The mother opposed, arguing that the child had unilaterally repudiated their relationship and therefore was not entitled to support.

The court found that the child had not voluntarily withdrawn from parental control but rather had been driven from the mother's home due to circumstances involving a third party, constituting a "constructive" withdrawal.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support retroactive to May 1, 2011, and to contribute 40% of special expenses.