Lisa Baumal

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his parenting time to a 2/2/3 schedule and to enroll the children in a school and daycare near his home.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain primary residence, add alternating Sunday overnights to the father's schedule, and enroll the children in a school and daycare near her home.

The court found no compelling reason to vary the interim schedule to a 2/2/3 arrangement but agreed to add the Sunday overnights to reduce conflict during exchanges.

The court also ordered the children to attend the school and daycare proposed by the mother, finding it in their best interests to maintain stability and routine.

The appellant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father, alleging he breached an interim access order by failing to provide her with access to their child on two weekends.

The court found that while the order was clear and the respondent had knowledge of it, the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally breached the order, as the missed visits resulted from a severe communication breakdown between the parties and counsel, compounded by the appellant's COVID-19 self-isolation.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, make-up access time was ordered, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following an uncontested trial where the applicant was awarded quantum meruit damages and spousal support, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the respondent's failure to participate constituted bad faith.

The court found that while the respondent acted unreasonably, his behavior did not rise to the level of bad faith given his physical and mental health issues.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $13,283.50, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the respondent's property.

Following an uncontested family law trial between long‑term unmarried cohabitants, the court addressed claims for unjust enrichment, lump‑sum spousal support, and a vesting order over the respondent’s real property.

The applicant had provided extensive caregiving and domestic services to the respondent during the final years of the 21‑year relationship while he suffered cognitive decline.

Applying the principles from Kerr v. Baranow, the court found the respondent had been unjustly enriched and awarded quantum meruit damages for the caregiving services.

The court also found entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act due to the long duration of cohabitation, economic disparity, and the applicant’s financial hardship, awarding a lump sum support payment.

A conditional vesting order was granted permitting sale of the respondent’s property if the judgment was not satisfied within 45 days.