Kathryn R. Hendrikx

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the resumption of in-person parenting time with his children.

The court had previously adjourned the motion and ordered the respondent to provide specific evidence regarding his compliance with medical recommendations, completion of a conditional sentence, and conduct during supervised virtual visits.

The respondent filed his materials late, submitted an unsworn affidavit, and failed to provide the required evidence of compliance with medical recommendations.

Finding that the respondent lacked insight and engaged in inappropriate communications with the children during virtual visits, the court dismissed the motion and limited his supervised videoconference parenting time to once a week.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte no-contact and no-communication order, seeking joint custody, supervised access, and regular contact with his children.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of criminal harassment, probation breaches, and continued unauthorized communication with the applicant mother and children.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts in counselling, the court found it in the children's best interests to reinstate only limited, supervised communication via text message, subject to strict conditions and ongoing counselling.

The respondent's requests for joint custody and supervised access were denied.

The applicant mother was awarded $25,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct necessitating the proceedings.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, severance of the divorce, and related relief.

The respondent, who was incarcerated in Florida awaiting trial for assaulting the applicant, sought an adjournment due to communication difficulties with his counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid prejudicing the applicant's pending condominium purchase.

Applying the Partition Act, the court granted the order for sale, finding no evidence that the sale would prejudice the respondent's equalization payment.

The court ordered 50% of the net proceeds to be released to the applicant and the remaining 50% to be held in trust.

The motion to sever the divorce was dismissed without prejudice, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a four-year common law relationship.

The mother sought custody, child support, spousal support, and payment of joint debts.

The court declined to make a formal custody order but granted the mother principal residence and final decision-making authority, noting the father's high-conflict behavior and attempts to undermine her parenting.

Finding that the father had significantly underreported his cash income from his carpentry business and failed to provide full financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $135,000 per year.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as retroactive spousal support on compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The mother's claim for debt repayment was dismissed for lack of evidence quantifying the father's share.

Following a family law motion, the respondent mother sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 and the general costs principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court compared the parties’ positions and the offer and found that the mother had been successful and that her offer justified full indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $11,000.

Due to the father’s financial circumstances and ongoing support obligations, the costs were ordered to be secured against his interest in the matrimonial home, with additional restrictions preventing him from depleting assets disclosed in his financial statement.

Interim family law motion addressing parenting schedule and child support following separation.

The father sought maximum contact with the parties’ three children, but the court found equal parenting time unrealistic due to the children’s ages, school locations, and the distance between the parents’ residences after the father relocated.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered providing the father alternating weekends, mid‑week access, and additional overnight time with the youngest child.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the father to pay table child support while both parties shared certain section 7 expenses.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a consent custody order.

The mother sought supervised access for the father and other modifications, while the father sought joint custody.

The litigation was acrimonious and protracted over approximately sixteen months, with both parents making unreasonable claims.

The mother was partially successful, the father was partially successful, and the matter ultimately settled.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite divided success, based on the father's unreasonable conduct, his failure to make a timely settlement offer, and his pursuit of an unjustifiable claim for joint custody.

The court rejected the father's argument that inability to pay should shield him from a costs award.

Both parties brought motions to change child and spousal support provisions from a December 18, 2007 order.

The father sought to terminate spousal support and child support for his adult daughter Veronica, while the mother sought increased child support retroactive to January 1, 2008, and an accounting of special expenses.

The court found that Veronica remained eligible for support until August 31, 2013, as she was completing her undergraduate degree.

The court recalculated child support retroactively, finding the father owed $22,500 in arrears due to his failure to adjust support in accordance with his increased income.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 directly to Veronica for her student loans and $2,500 to the mother.

Spousal support was continued until June 30, 2014, with a reduction of $50 per month as a set-off for unpaid costs.