Linda A. Hanson

The applicant mother sought to suspend or supervise the respondent father's access to their special needs child, Patrick, alleging non-compliance with medical protocols and COVID-19 procedures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since a recent trial decision that had thoroughly addressed similar issues and established a gradual access regime.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous order and improving parental communication.

The applicant sought sole custody, shared parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence and opposed spousal support.

The court granted the divorce, awarded sole custody to the applicant with a 5-2-2-5 shared parenting schedule, finding the respondent had attempted to alienate the children and failed to act in their best interests.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $838 per month and spousal support of $348 per month for five years.

Equalization of net family property was settled by consent during trial.

Orders were also made regarding extended health benefits and life insurance as security for support.

Following a successful motion by the moving party to terminate his spousal support obligations, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court noted deficiencies in the bills of costs provided by both parties, as they were not organized by major steps in the case.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering factors including an offer to settle served shortly before the hearing, the court awarded costs of $7,000 to the successful moving party.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife), retroactive to May 1, 2016.

The court found that the responding party's post-separation bankruptcy and subsequent remarriage constituted material changes in circumstances.

Given the responding party's reduced need, her failure to maximize her earning capacity, and the increased household income from her new spouse, the court reduced spousal support to a nominal amount of $1 per month for five years, retroactive to April 1, 2017.

Following a family law trial, the court released an addendum to earlier reasons after recognizing that certain issues had not been addressed, including net family property equalization, section 7 expenses, and clarification of child support.

The court held that it retained jurisdiction to resolve matters not previously determined despite arguments that it was functus officio.

After reviewing the parties’ financial statements and submissions, the court accepted the respondent’s equalization calculation and ordered payment to the applicant in monthly instalments.

The court also clarified the applicant’s ongoing obligations for section 7 expenses and established procedures for future proportional sharing based on annual income disclosure.

An order for ongoing child support was specified based on the applicant’s income and the applicable Federal Child Support Tables.

The father brought a motion alleging the mother was in contempt of several prior custody and access orders relating to their child.

The court focused on whether the mother had breached a specific access order requiring the child to spend time with the father.

Evidence showed the mother had conveyed to the child that he could decide whether to attend visits and had taken no meaningful steps to enforce the order.

The court found that these actions effectively discouraged compliance and constituted contempt of the existing access order.

Sanctions were deferred while the court implemented a structured, gradual access regime and counselling measures to rebuild the father–child relationship.