3 total
The court ordered parallel decision-making and a shared parenting schedule for a young child following a high-conflict separation involving family violence.
The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, specific parenting time, child support, and a restraining order.
The respondent father sought joint decision-making, continuation of shared parenting, and determination of school.
The court found both parents contributed to family violence and conflict.
A final parenting order was made establishing parallel decision-making (mother for medical/dental, father for education/extra-curricular), primary residence with the father, and a 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule.
The mother's claim for a restraining order was dismissed, and child support was deferred pending further evidence.
The court finalized property equalization, awarding prejudgment interest but denying inheritance exclusion and occupation rent.
The wife's application for family law relief involved equalization of property, including a fishing boat, tax debts, and an inheritance exclusion, as well as post-separation adjustments for occupation rent.
The court dismissed the wife's claims regarding the fishing boat and inheritance exclusion due to insufficient tracing evidence.
It accepted the husband's proportional tax debt deductions.
Prejudgment interest was awarded to the wife on the equalization payment from the date of separation.
The claim for occupation rent was denied, considering the parties' financial arrangements, the wife's delay in claiming, and her benefit from property value increase.
A divorce order was granted on consent.
Leave to appeal denied from procedural family law order.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law procedural order that extended the respondent's time to file an answer and financial statement, preserved the status quo, and fixed costs at $200.
The court reviewed the strict test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held there was neither a conflicting decision on principle nor sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the order coupled with issues of broader importance.
Although the motion judge dealt with the Form 14B motion before expiry of the four-day response period under the Family Law Rules, the court found leave to appeal was still not warranted.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.
