Lauren Bale

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict custody and access dispute over their five-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody and decision-making, while the father sought expanded access and parallel parenting.

Following a 44-day trial and a section 30 assessment, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, but significantly expanded the father's parenting time to include phased-in overnight visits.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime for decision-making, granting the mother authority over education and routine medical care, and the father authority over routine dental care and final decision-making for major medical and dental issues.

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The applicant mother sought parental support from her estranged adult daughter under s. 32 of the Family Law Act.

The mother claimed financial destitution, while the daughter, a successful professional, opposed the application and sought a restraining order, citing a history of severe emotional and physical abuse.

The court dismissed the mother's claim, finding she failed to establish financial need, as her destitution was a result of her own reckless spending.

Furthermore, the court held that the mother's abusive conduct meant she had not provided adequate care or support to the daughter, and her unconscionable behaviour disentitled her to support.

A restraining order was granted against the mother.

The applicant mother sought parental support under section 32 of the Family Law Act from her adult daughter, claiming a need for $3,000 per month.

The applicant alleged she had provided care and support to the respondent from birth until age 16, when the respondent chose to live with her father.

The respondent opposed the claim and sought a restraining order, alleging a history of physical and emotional abuse, alienation from her father, exposure to domestic violence, and ongoing harassment including criminal charges and civil litigation.

The court found the applicant had not established entitlement to parental support on the basis of need, had not provided adequate care or support given the emotional and psychological abuse inflicted on the respondent, and that the applicant's unconscionable conduct constituted an obvious gross repudiation of the mother-daughter relationship.

The court dismissed the parental support claim and granted a restraining order.

The father brought a motion to change to prevent the mother from moving with their 3-year-old child from Dundas to the Kincardine area to live with her fiancé.

The mother sought an order allowing the move.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court determined that the move was in the child's best interests, as it would provide the mother with financial stability and a new family unit, while the father would still have regular access.

The mother was permitted to relocate with the child, and the father's access schedule was adjusted to accommodate the increased distance.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought a divorce and determination of child and spousal support.

The respondent father claimed retroactive child and spousal support, and argued that the applicant's income should include pre-tax corporate income from her dental technology business or be imputed at a higher level.

The court held that retroactive support must be specifically pleaded, which the respondent failed to do.

Even if pleaded, the test for retroactive support was not met and any amounts would have been offset by the respondent's child support obligations.

The court declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income or impute income to the applicant, finding her business decisions reasonable due to her mental health and the company's financial realities.

The court ordered the applicant to pay ongoing spousal support of $233 per month based on a non-compensatory, needs-based claim, and found no ongoing monthly child support was payable by either party due to a set-off in their hybrid custody arrangement.