Kenneth Bradley Fraser

The case involves two competing parenting motions to review and expand the father's parenting time with his six-year-old daughter, Adelle, following his demonstrated sobriety from alcohol.

The court considered the child's best interests, the father's consistent negative alcohol tests, and the mother's concerns regarding the pace of expansion and marijuana use.

The court expanded the father's mid-week overnight contact and maintained the existing "Happy Fridays" schedule, but limited weekend overnights to Sunday evening return.

The court also refined the alcohol testing regime and set a specific Christmas parenting schedule for 2024.

This decision addresses a costs motion following the applicant's successful interim restraining order.

The court applied Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to determine costs, rejecting the applicant's argument for near full recovery based on a misinterpretation of Berta v. Berta, as clarified by Beaver v. Hill.

While the respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable and provocative, it did not constitute bad faith.

The court found the applicant's counsel's time and hourly rate reasonable and proportional to the issue, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay $6,500 in costs.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against the respondent under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act due to reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The parties, former cohabitants, were engaged in acrimonious litigation, particularly concerning the beneficial ownership of the Mayfair property where the applicant resided.

The respondent's unilateral declaration of intent to enter the property for bow hunting precipitated the motion.

The court found the applicant's fear for her psychological and physical safety to be reasonable and legitimate, supported by evidence of past intimidation and provocative conduct.

The interim restraining order was granted, prohibiting the respondent from attending within 200 metres of the Mayfair property and 100 metres of the applicant's place of employment.

The order was made without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek its termination if the proceeding is not finalized by June 30, 2023.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim spousal support prior to a case conference following the breakdown of a short marriage with no children.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the respondent’s pension income, RRSP assets, and tax‑free municipal income, as well as the applicant’s recent back surgery and limited current employment prospects.

The respondent argued that his income was modest and that RRSP withdrawals funded much of the parties’ lifestyle during the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in the respondent’s financial disclosure and drew an adverse inference regarding omitted tax‑free income.

On an interim, interim basis, the court ordered spousal support to permit the applicant to meet living expenses and transition to employment and alternate accommodation.