Kellie A. Stewart

A family law trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children following a separation marked by significant domestic violence perpetrated by the father against the mother.

The trial addressed custody, access, decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and property equalization.

The court found that despite the father's loving parenting abilities when regulated, his extensive history of violence, criminal conduct, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and inability to gain insight into his behavior made him unsuitable for primary care.

The mother was granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The father was granted regular unsupervised parenting time with structured exchanges and a restraining order was imposed to protect the mother from ongoing harassment and emotional abuse.

The respondents, Barnes, Sammon LLP and Alana Guy, brought a motion to set aside an assessment officer's report that ordered them to jointly pay the applicant, Gaganpreet Blaggan, $22,441.15.

The respondents argued they were denied procedural fairness due to inadequate notice of the pre-assessment and assessment hearings.

The court found that the applicant's counsel failed to ensure proper notice to all parties and did not inform the assessment officer of Ms. Guy's unavailability or adjournment request.

Consequently, the court set aside the assessment report and remitted the matter for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the importance of due notice and counsel's duty of cooperation.

The applicant brought a fourth motion to change a final order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support adjustments, correction of a 2017 error, termination of ongoing child support for the child S., disclosure from the respondent, proportionate sharing of S.'s post-secondary expenses, and relief regarding RESPs and a CPP-D benefit.

The court granted some retroactive child support adjustments and corrected the 2017 error.

It ordered ongoing child support to continue while the child was living at home and established proportionate sharing for s. 7 expenses.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests to terminate ongoing child support, for the respondent to pay a CPP-D benefit to the child, and for relief concerning a discontinued RESP account.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, seeking to add a new defendant and remove an existing one.

The court identified numerous procedural deficiencies in the motion record, including an improper basis for bringing the motion in writing (expectation of unopposed vs. consent), lack of affidavit of service for the proposed new party, use of antiquated terminology ("style of cause"), and issues with the consent form and document filing.

The motion was not granted at this time and was adjourned with specific directions for the plaintiff to correct the record and ensure proper service on all parties, including the proposed new defendant.

This decision resolves outstanding financial issues and costs following a partial settlement during a family law trial.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes, determined proportionate shares for section 7 extraordinary expenses, and addressed claims related to the matrimonial home.

The respondent's claim for matrimonial home expenses was dismissed due to a prior separation agreement.

The court also made a costs order, finding mixed success on financial issues and ordering partial recovery costs, with a net amount payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The father (D.L.) brought a motion to change decision-making authority and sought an order for the children to participate in the Family Bridges program, alleging parental alienation by the mother (J.L.).

The mother opposed, seeking sole decision-making authority and arguing the children were estranged due to the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no evidence of parental alienation and concluding that the children's reasons for rejecting the father were legitimate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion to change child support, which the respondent brought.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the respondent was deemed the more successful party, entitling them to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the outcome.

Considering the divided success, the reasonableness of the lawyers' rates and time spent, and the principles of costs, the court fixed costs at $2,150, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with her three-year-old daughter from Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The mother sought to move for new employment, to marry her boyfriend, and to access her family support network, as she had no family support in Ottawa.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it was not in the child's best interests and would reduce his contact.

The court applied the two-stage test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, finding a material change in circumstances.

Considering the mother's role as the child's primary caregiver, the father's history of frequently cancelled access visits due to work commitments, the mother's legitimate reasons for moving, and the minimal disruption to the child due to her young age (not yet in kindergarten), the court granted the mother's motion to relocate.