Kenneth Bradley Fraser

The applicant was completely successful on an urgent motion for a parenting order after the respondent biological parents withheld the child from him.

The applicant sought costs of $20,000.

The respondents argued for no costs due to limited financial means.

The court found the respondents acted unreasonably by withholding the child and pursuing an ill-informed theory that only biological parents should have parenting time.

The court fixed costs at $10,000, payable $5,000 by each respondent, with a payment plan for the mother.

The applicant, who raised the child as his own for the first year of the child's life, sought an urgent interim parenting order after a DNA test revealed he was not the biological father.

The biological mother and the newly identified biological father opposed the applicant having any parenting time, arguing the child should only have two parents.

The court rejected the biological parents' position, finding that the applicant was the child's psychological father and primary caregiver post-separation.

Applying the best interests factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the applicant alternating weeks of parenting time.

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.

The applicant was successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and sought costs of $8,000.

The respondent opposed, citing her unemployment and the applicant's failure to pay support.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, finding the respondent's resistance to the sale unreasonable but reducing the amount to exclude time spent on a related support motion.

Given the applicant's substantial admitted support arrears, the court ordered that the costs not be payable until all issues in the case are finally resolved to allow for potential set-off.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The parties separated in 2017 and the respondent mother remained in the home.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant that would defeat his prima facie right to a sale under the Partition Act.

The court ordered the home to be listed and sold, with a $100,000 holdback from the applicant's share of the net proceeds to secure arrears of child and spousal support.

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 moving party brought a motion to disqualify the responding party's lawyer due to a conflict of interest.

The lawyer had represented the moving party 15 years prior in a family law matter involving his first wife, where issues of income and support were also determined.

The court found that the two cases were sufficiently connected and that the lawyer failed to rebut the presumption that confidential information was imparted during the prior retainer.

The court concluded that there was a realistic risk of a conflict of interest and an appearance of divided loyalties, disqualifying the lawyer from acting against his former client.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking joint custody and increased parenting time, including overnight visits, with the parties' infant child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the father was incapable of caring for the child and that overnight visits would disrupt the child's breastfeeding schedule.

The court found that the mother's resistance was punitive and that the child's best interests required fostering a relationship with the father.

The court ordered an interim schedule granting the father one day visit and one overnight visit per week, but declined to order joint custody at this stage.

The applicant sought a divorce under Part 2 of the Civil Marriage Act, which allows Canadian courts to grant divorces to non-resident spouses whose marriage is not recognized in their state of residence.

The parties, who reside in Hong Kong, separated four months before the application was issued.

The court found the application deficient because the Act requires parties to be separated for at least one year before making the application.

Additionally, the court held that expert evidence is required to prove the foreign law that Hong Kong does not recognize the marriage.

The applicant was granted time to file further evidence before the application would be dismissed.

Following an interim family law motion regarding custody and access, the court determined costs.

The applicant sought over $32,000 in full recovery costs after obtaining an interim joint custody order with a parenting schedule primarily placing the children with her and permitting one child to attend school in a new location.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court held the applicant achieved some success and was presumptively entitled to costs, but rejected allegations of bad faith and found both parties contributed to excessive costs through voluminous affidavit material and litigation conduct.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court found the amount claimed to be disproportionate and reduced costs substantially.

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.