Karen P. Pelletier

Le jugement porte sur la nullité du mariage entre Joseph Nzambayulu Mboma et Marie Mbwamuyolo, ainsi que sur la date de leur séparation.

Le tribunal conclut que le requérant était déjà marié à Bolele Bakopo (aussi connue sous le nom de Bolele Nzamba) au moment de son mariage avec la défenderesse, et que ce mariage antérieur n’a jamais été dissous.

Par conséquent, le mariage entre les parties est déclaré nul ab initio.

La date de la séparation des parties est fixée au 1er avril 2018, sur la base de la prépondérance des probabilités et de l’évaluation de la crédibilité des témoins et des preuves documentaires.

The applicant sought a divorce, joint custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered primary residence with the applicant due to the respondent's post-separation anger and its effect on the children.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and limited spousal support to 10 years.

The applicant's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the respondent's pension was dismissed, and equalization was fixed at $73,393.45.

The respondent was granted partial reimbursement for post-separation expenses.

The respondent sought a modification of the parental schedule to achieve 50/50 custody and an adjustment to child support.

The applicant opposed the change to the parental schedule and also sought an adjustment to child support, the cancellation of drug screening tests, and an order allowing her to manage inheritance funds without the respondent's participation.

The court denied the respondent's request for a 50/50 parental schedule, citing allegations of domestic violence and the child's difficulty adjusting to schedule changes.

Child support was adjusted downwards based on the respondent's reduced income.

The frequency of drug tests was reduced from twice weekly to once monthly, acknowledging negative results but also a history of drug use.

The issue of managing inheritance funds was reserved for trial.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order regarding child access and spousal support.

The applicant mother sought $5,000 in costs, arguing substantial success on spousal support and parenting arrangements.

The respondent father argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing mixed success and the mother's alleged unreasonableness.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court found the mother successful on spousal support and that the parenting outcome was more aligned with her proposal.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother $2,500 in costs.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a prior motion, including the appointment of a parenting assessor, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court appointed Dr. Pérusse as the parenting assessor, ordering both parties to equally share the assessment and translation costs due to a language barrier.

Nadine Lachapelle was ordered to pay Rebecca Leblanc $498 per month in child support and $1200 per month in temporary spousal support, both retroactive to March 1, 2016.

Rebecca Leblanc was ordered to contribute $125 per month to daycare expenses.

Directions for costs submissions were also provided.

The parties, parents of a five-year-old child, brought multiple motions for temporary orders regarding custody, parenting schedule, exchange time, right of first refusal, choice of dentist and school, parenting assessment, co-parenting counselling, holiday sharing, police enforcement, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court declined to make an order for temporary sole custody due to high conflict, instead addressing specific major decisions.

The court ordered the child to continue attending her current French school and to continue treatment with her current dentist.

The exchange time was set at 3:45 pm, and requests for police enforcement and specific holiday schedules for 2017 were dismissed.

Several issues, including child support, spousal support, and the parenting assessment, were deferred for further information.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders and spousal support.

The father sought joint custody and equal time, while the mother sought a specific parenting schedule and $2,000 monthly spousal support.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests given his sensitivity to change.

The court also found the mother entitled to interim spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, awarding her $2,000 per month, recognizing the relationship as one of "some permanence" under the Family Law Act despite its short duration.

Following a family law motion concerning parenting arrangements and child support, the successful party sought full recovery of legal costs.

The court found that the moving party was mostly successful on the motion and that the resulting order closely reflected the moving party’s settlement proposal.

However, the court determined that the amount claimed in the bill of costs was excessive and included time outside the scope of the motion.

Taking into account the financial circumstances of the responding party and the reasonable time required to argue the motion, the court substantially reduced the requested amount and awarded partial indemnity costs.