Leanna J.T. Simpson

This is a complex family law case involving a dispute over parenting arrangements between separated parents.

The applicant sought an order to temporarily remove the children from the respondent's primary care due to her alleged failure to meaningfully participate in court-ordered reunification therapy.

The case evolved over seven years from a simple application to confirm parenting time into a comprehensive examination of parental alienation, estrangement, and the children's resistance to contact with their father.

The court found that the respondent engaged in systematic alienating conduct that prevented the development of a meaningful father-child relationship, but ultimately declined to reverse custody due to the children's ages and entrenched positions.

This family law trial concerned the equalization of net family property after the parties had resolved child and spousal support.

The remaining issues were the respondent's claimed date of marriage deduction for a property (the Ailsa property) and whether a $6,000 settlement received by the applicant should be included in her net family property.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a date of marriage deduction, finding he failed to discharge his onus of proof with reliable evidence regarding beneficial ownership or value.

The court also found that the applicant's settlement funds were used to repay a loan from her parents and should not be included as an asset.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant an equalization payment of $41,711.99, with a portion to be paid from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following an undefended trial where the applicant was awarded damages for assault and battery, the applicant sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 all inclusive, finding the fees and time spent reasonable given the respondent's tortious conduct.

The court also ordered that the applicant be reimbursed from the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds of their jointly-owned property for half of a Legal Aid lien incurred by the respondent for his criminal defence.

This was an undefended trial where the applicant sought general and special damages for physical injuries and loss of income resulting from a brutal assault by the respondent.

The respondent was served but failed to file an answer or appear.

The court also addressed the sale of a jointly-owned residence.

The judge awarded the applicant $60,000 in general damages and $8,700 in special damages, taking into account significant aggravating factors of the assault.

The order also provided for the payment of damages from the respondent's share of the proceeds from the sale of the jointly-owned property, with the property sale issue remaining before the court for further directions.