Karen M. King

The applicant, Lorri Lynn Parkins, sought an order for partition and sale of the matrimonial home as interim relief in her application to set aside a separation agreement with the respondent, Douglas John Parkins.

The court declined to order the sale, finding that it would prejudice the respondent’s rights under the agreement, which had not yet been set aside.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall from the initial equalization payment and to resume full monthly payments, as his unilateral reductions were improper.

Costs were not awarded, as success was divided.

Following the death of the children's mother, both the biological father and the stepfather brought motions seeking primary care of the four children.

The court found that the mother's death constituted a material change in circumstances but determined it was in the children's best interests to remain in the primary care of their stepfather, who provided stability and support alongside the maternal grandparents.

The biological father's request for primary care was dismissed, but his parenting time was increased.

This trial addressed a motion to change a parenting order, retroactive child support, and unpaid s. 7 expenses.

The primary issue concerned the extent to which a 13-year-old child could decide her parenting time with her non-resident father, who was unwilling to adjust the existing order despite the child's increasing resistance.

The court found the father largely responsible for the estrangement due to his rigidity and failure to acknowledge the child's emotional needs and preferences.

The court ordered that the child's parenting time with the father would be at her discretion.

Additionally, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide annual income disclosure, leading to underpayment of child support (excluding RRSP income as per a previous order).

Retroactive child support arrears and s. 7 expense arrears were ordered against the father.

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing that the responding party had achieved economic self-sufficiency due to an increase in her employment income.

The court found that the responding party's increased income constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, considering the compensatory nature of the original support order and the economic hardship the responding party suffered from the marriage breakdown, the court declined to terminate support.

Instead, the court reduced the monthly spousal support amount retroactively and prospectively based on the parties' updated incomes.

The applicant moved for a temporary variation of a final parenting order to require that the respondent's parenting time be supervised, while the respondent sought enforcement and make-up parenting time and to strike portions of the evidentiary record.

The court declined to strike the applicant's affidavits and only treated speculative, inflammatory, and irrelevant portions of a non-party affidavit as struck.

Applying the stringent framework for temporary variation of a final parenting order, the court found a material change in circumstances based on previously unknown evidence from the respondent's adult child alleging past sexual and physical abuse.

Given the uncontradicted evidence, the absence of any direct denial by the respondent, and the statutory requirement to prioritize the children's safety, security, and wellbeing, the court ordered supervised parenting time pending further order.

The parties, who share parenting time on a rotating weekly basis, disagreed on which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed a public school near his home, while the respondent mother proposed a French first language Catholic school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering logistics, the parents' ability to assist with homework, and the promotion of the child's religious and linguistic heritage.

The court ordered that the child attend the French Catholic school proposed by the mother, finding it more consonant with the child's best interests.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary order granting her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and custody of the children.

The parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year.

The moving party alleged that the living arrangement had become unbearable due to tension and verbal abuse.

The court found that while there was tension and stress in the home, it did not rise to the level of warranting the dramatic and highly prejudicial effect of excluding the responding party from the home at this time.

The motion was dismissed.

The children's aid society apprehended three children from their father's care due to concerns about his inability to control his temper and excessive discipline.

The society sought an interim order placing the children with their mother and restricting the father's access.

The father brought motions to strike the society's affidavit and dismiss the protection application as an abuse of process, arguing bias and a right to refuse cooperation.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no abuse of process and that his refusal to cooperate with services raised valid protection concerns.

Applying the interim placement test, the court found a real risk of emotional and physical harm if the children were returned to the father.

The children were placed with the mother on an interim basis, and the father was granted supervised access subject to strict conditions.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law motion concerning compliance with undertakings and an advance for legal fees or release of funds from trust.

The court held that the moving party achieved partial success and was presumptively entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

Applying the reasonableness factors, the court awarded costs for the undertakings issue but reduced recovery on the funding issue because the moving party had failed to make timely financial disclosure.

Final costs were fixed at $2,500 inclusive of HST and assessable disbursements.

On an interim family law motion following separation, the applicant sought equalization and related relief while the respondent sought child and spousal support.

The court addressed support obligations concerning a child treated by the applicant as a child of the family, despite the presence of a biological father paying support.

Applying s. 5 of the Child Support Guidelines and principles regarding step-parent obligations, the court ordered reduced interim child support rather than the full table amount.

For spousal support, the court imputed limited income to the respondent due to disputed financial evidence and ordered interim support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Requests regarding chattels were declined on an interim basis due to conflicting evidence.

Cross-motions for interim custody of a child born in 2007 were heard.

The child had been apprehended at birth and placed with paternal grandparents following a 2011 trial.

In June 2013, the parents negotiated a custody/access agreement with joint custody and primary residence with the father.

In August 2013, they entered into a Voluntary Services Agreement with the child welfare agency, which closed its file.

In October 2013, the mother unilaterally removed the child from the father's care and school, leading to an emergency order reinstating primary residence with the father.

The court found that the father had demonstrated continued commitment to the child's welfare through ongoing involvement with support agencies and counselling programs.

The court found the mother had not adequately addressed her mental health issues or demonstrated capacity to parent a behaviourally challenged child.

The court dismissed the mother's claims and reinstated the access regime from the mediated agreement, declining to endorse extended summer access pending further evidence of the mother's ability to maintain consistent routines.

A mother sought a sole custody order against the father following their separation.

The parents had been cohabiting and had agreed to a week-on, week-off shared placement arrangement for their two children.

The mother alleged the father did not trust or respect her as a parenting partner, refused to cooperate, and would not communicate.

The court found that while the shared placement arrangement had worked well for the children, shared parenting decision-making was not viable due to the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while maintaining the existing week-on, week-off access schedule for the father.

The court also found that the father had made unfounded complaints to Children's Aid Society, including a serious allegation of sexual assault, which demonstrated his unwillingness to legitimately share parenting responsibilities.