Linda J. Wilson

In this family law trial, the father sought sole decision-making and primary residence for both children, and child support.

The mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence for the younger child, K, and child support.

The court found the father's credibility strained due to inconsistencies, his refusal to cooperate, and his engagement in various forms of family violence.

The court determined the mother was more child-focused and better able to meet K's needs.

Consequently, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for K. Child support for the older child (D) was terminated as he was not pursuing full-time education.

The father's income was imputed to minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay child support for K based on this imputed income.

Arrears were fixed at zero, balancing the parties' financial responsibilities.

The decision also set out specific parenting time for the father, travel arrangements, and a proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The respondent (mother) sought $60,000 in costs, while the applicant (father) argued for a maximum of $15,000 and extended payment terms.

The court awarded the mother $24,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $500 per month over four years.

The mother was deemed the more successful party in the underlying trial on key issues including primary residence, decision-making, and parenting time, and partially on child support.

The court noted unreasonable conduct from both parties, including excessive documentation and personal attacks, and emphasized the importance of making severable offers to settle.

The decision also clarified the circumstances for awarding costs for prior litigation steps and ordered a portion of the costs ($9,000) to be enforced as an incident of support.

This trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child amidst high parental conflict.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and retroactive child support.

The court found both parties unreliable due to their self-serving narratives and intense animosity.

Prioritizing the child's best interests, the court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with the child attending public school in the mother's catchment area.

The court imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, along with a revised parenting schedule that increased the father's time but did not establish shared parenting.

Orders regarding travel documentation and communication were also made to mitigate conflict.