Scott DeGroot

The parties separated in 2021 and entered into a separation agreement providing for equal parenting time and joint decision-making with the applicant father having final authority.

The applicant subsequently abused his decision-making authority, repeatedly withheld the children, and made unfounded allegations of physical abuse against the respondent mother to the police and CAS.

Following a trial, the court ordered that equal parenting time continue on a 2-2-3 schedule, but granted sole decision-making responsibility to the respondent mother due to the applicant's history of unilateral decision-making and creation of adult conflict.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to permit her and the parties' 8-year-old child to travel to England and Scotland, and to dispense with the applicant father's consent.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking urgent orders for parenting time and declarations that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act supersedes the Divorce Act.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the trip to be in the child's best interests and noting the father provided no valid reason for withholding consent.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion as inappropriate for an urgent interim motion and adjourned the parenting issues to a case conference.

The parties submitted written arguments regarding costs following the applicant's successful motion for enforcement of a disclosure order and interim spousal support.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on a written offer to settle that was more favourable than the order obtained.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent's dilatory approach to financial disclosure necessitated the motion.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The parties separated in 2015 and the mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and child support for their eight-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody and alleged the mother alienated the child and caused him financial abuse.

The court found no evidence of alienation or abuse by the mother, noting she provided a stable home and facilitated access.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, ordered alternate weekend access for the father, and imputed income to the father to calculate ongoing and retroactive child support.