L. Reich

The parties separated and resolved all issues except the primary residence of their two young children.

The applicant father sought to maintain the interim week-about shared parenting arrangement, while the respondent mother sought primary residence.

The court considered the mother's history of post-partum depression and the father's active involvement in parenting, including caring for their son who has epilepsy.

Finding that the children were thriving under the status quo and that both parents provided stable, loving homes, the court ordered the continuation of the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint custody.

This was a family costs ruling following a four-day trial concerning custody, parenting time, retroactive child support, current child support, and arrears.

The applicant was wholly successful at trial and had served an offer to settle more favourable to the respondent than the result obtained.

The court held that the respondent's litigation conduct, including delayed financial disclosure and an untenable position on joint custody and equal parenting time, justified a substantial costs recovery approaching full recovery.

The court awarded $28,797.24 in costs and declared $14,398.62 of that amount enforceable as support-related legal expenses under the enforcement statute.

In this family trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child support, and retroactive child support, while the respondent sought joint custody, equal time-sharing, and no support obligation.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the appellate jurisprudence governing joint custody, the court held that joint decision-making was inappropriate because the parties had no effective communication and the respondent's communications were abusive and denigrating.

The court found the child was thriving in the applicant's primary care, that the applicant promoted the child's important family relationships, and that the respondent's motivation for shared parenting was significantly tied to avoiding guideline support.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the applicant, maintained the existing access schedule, and granted retroactive child support arrears of $12,500.