Dion Radcliffe McClean

The applicant mother sought orders to implement parenting schedules and related relief, including police enforcement, due to the respondent father's alleged withholding of their child, EM, and non-compliance with agreements.

The father brought an irregular cross-motion for temporary custody.

The court found the father engaged in parental alienation tactics, consistently disregarded agreements, and failed to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The child, diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, exhibited poor school attendance and academic performance while in the father's care.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the mother temporary sole custody, sole decision-making authority for EM's healthcare and schooling, and ordered reunification therapy, with police enforcement of the custody order.

The respondent brought an ex parte motion seeking leave to bring a Family Law Rule r. 15 motion to change a child support order.

The applicant was unrepresented and did not receive notice.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds: the respondent had previously been ordered by Justice O'Connell not to bring future proceedings without leave of the court due to prior misconduct including misleading the court, filing false affidavits, and failing to pay support; the respondent failed to meet the duty of candour required on ex parte motions by withholding vital information; the affidavit filed by a law clerk violated Family Law Rules requirements by containing hearsay evidence without proper identification of sources; and the conditions for bringing a motion without notice under Family Law Rule 14(12) were not met.

A costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The mother, acting in person, sought costs of $7,611.17 after obtaining a judgment for $14,688 in retroactive child support and ongoing monthly support of $1,075 plus section 7 special expenses.

The father sought costs of $5,100 but filed his submission out of time.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $3,500, finding her substantially more successful than the father.

The court emphasized the father's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with disclosure timelines and serving financial disclosure and an offer to settle only one hour before trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated February 12, 2010, seeking an increase in child support retroactive to the date of the existing order, including contributions to the children's special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses).

The respondent father opposed the retroactive claim but agreed to a prospective increase based on his 2015 income.

The court found that while the father engaged in some blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income increases and pay support in accordance with his actual income, the mother's delay in bringing the motion was not adequately explained, primarily due to the parties' on-and-off relationship from August 2013 to July 2015.

The court made a retroactive order effective August 1, 2015 (the date after the parties' final separation), rather than from the date of the original order, and ordered the father to pay increased child support and contribute to section 7 expenses for the children's extracurricular activities and education.

An application for child support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act where the mother sought child support, special expenses contributions, and medical/dental coverage for a seven-year-old child.

The father initially claimed an income of $35,000 per annum but evidence showed he was earning $45,656 per annum.

The court imputed income of $35,000 for the period February 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 based on the father's prior employment history and capacity to earn.

The court found the father had intentionally underemployed himself after quitting his job in New Brunswick.

Child support was ordered retroactively to February 1, 2013, with arrears of $5,984 to be repaid at $125 per month.

The father was ordered to contribute 50% of childcare expenses.

The claim for medical, dental, and extended health coverage was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.