Samantha A. Filipovic

In a high-conflict separation, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' two children, while the applicant mother sought joint custody.

The court found that the parents were unable to communicate effectively and that important decisions, particularly regarding the children's need for counseling, required timely resolution.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the father to ensure these decisions could be made, while ordering a specified access schedule for the mother, including alternate weekends and weekday evenings.

A request for a non-harassment order was dismissed as unnecessary given the parties' consent to communicate only via email about child-focused issues.

Following the settlement of a family law trial, the respondent sought costs of $11,012.50 plus disbursements.

The applicant opposed the quantum, arguing the issues were simple and the respondent's preparation time was excessive.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs due to his reasonable offers to settle and the applicant's failure to provide financial disclosure.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 for fees plus $57 for disbursements, plus HST, and characterized as an incident of child support.

On a motion to temporarily vary a final family order, the applicant mother sought increased child support, contribution to special and extraordinary expenses, continuation of employment health coverage for the child, and designation of the child as beneficiary of the respondent father's life insurance.

The court accepted the father's projected annual income from his paystub evidence after declining to admit late responding financial documentation contrary to an earlier production order.

Temporary child support was increased retroactive to December 1, 2014, special expenses were apportioned by income, and orders were made respecting health benefits and life insurance coverage.

The court also awarded the mother costs, finding the motion was necessitated by the father's inadequate financial disclosure.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law dispute involving child support, property issues, and whether a custody order should be made for a 17‑year‑old child with special needs.

The court determined interim child support obligations, ordering the respondent to pay guideline support for the younger child and directing both parents to contribute proportionally to post‑secondary expenses for the older child attending college.

The court also made orders regarding orthodontic expenses, insurance coverage, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The request for a custody order for the nearly 17‑year‑old child was declined, with the court emphasizing the limited practical value of custody orders for older teenagers and finding no evidence that the child’s best interests required one.