Lisa Irene Bombardieri

This decision addresses urgent motions regarding the residential schedule of four children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a proposed nesting arrangement following the separation of Laura Anne Fennema and Trevor William Harry Fennema.

The court found the parenting time issues urgent due to the children’s removal from their home and school, but dismissed other requests for lack of urgency.

The court declined to order exclusive possession or nesting, primarily because of the Applicant’s criminal release conditions and the practicalities of the family farm.

The court ordered the children’s immediate return to their home with the Respondent and set a detailed interim parenting schedule, emphasizing the children’s best interests and stability.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $297,615.08 following a successful trial where the Respondents were found to have acted in bad faith and lied under oath.

The court found that full recovery costs were warranted under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the Respondents' bad faith conduct, and alternatively under Rule 18(14) due to the Applicant's favourable offers to settle.

However, the court reduced the quantum of costs to $150,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the requested amount disproportionate to the financial outcome and considering the Applicant's partial success on some issues.

Both Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for the costs.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding in need of protection for two children based on exposure to high-conflict parental separation and the father's refusal to consent to recommended medical treatment.

The mother sought costs against the father, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct that prolonged the proceedings over six court appearances spanning several months.

The court found the father's conduct to be persistently and extraordinarily unreasonable, including filing excessive and irrelevant affidavit material, maintaining a meritless legal argument, failing to attend trial management conferences, and using access negotiations as leverage in the costs dispute.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation and rescind outstanding arrears based on a material change in circumstances following his loss of employment as a probation officer due to criminal convictions for impaired driving.

The respondent mother opposed the variation.

The court found that although the father's income had decreased, he was not entitled to a variation because: (1) his job loss resulted from his own misconduct; (2) he failed to make genuine efforts to obtain alternative employment; (3) he failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure; and (4) he had not acted in good faith.

The court imputed income to the father at his historical salary of $70,941.00 and dismissed the motion to change, refusing to reduce or rescind the outstanding arrears.