Katrina A. Prystupa

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a final consent order that had resolved all issues in matrimonial litigation, including custody and access.

The respondent had moved to set aside the order on the basis that his solicitor did not consult him regarding the final document.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge lacked the necessary foundation to exercise the discretion to refuse to give effect to the settlement agreement.

The respondent's affidavit was feeble, he failed to adequately explain a 5.5-month delay, and the motion was served on short notice while the appellant was away.

The order was set aside without prejudice to the respondent renewing his motion on better material.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting joint custody of the children to the father and determining child support issues.

She argued the trial judge erred in awarding joint custody, failing to impute higher income to the father, and calculating section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's best interests analysis or financial determinations.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed, as the trial judge had remained seized of the custody issue for one year and was better positioned to address new complaints.

The appellant husband, residing in Saskatchewan, obtained a provisional order to terminate spousal support.

The provisional order was sent to Ontario for a confirmation hearing because the respondent wife resided there.

The Ontario court found that not all evidence from Saskatchewan had been transmitted, failing to comply with s. 18(3) of the Divorce Act, but dismissed the motion for confirmation instead of remitting it back.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, holding that a proper record was essential, set aside the dismissal, and directed the matter be remitted for a confirmation hearing in Alberta, where the wife now resides.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' three children and requiring her to pay child and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the joint custody order, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the parents could communicate effectively regarding the children.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding support, finding the trial judge erred by failing to impute income to the father despite evidence he worked part-time while receiving a disability pension.

The Court also set aside the future support orders due to the uncertainty of multiple contingencies, ordering instead that each parent bear the expense of supporting the children while in their care.