Lisa Marie Allegro

A non-party brought a motion to be added as a respondent or, alternatively, to be granted leave to intervene in a family law application concerning parenting time and decision-making authority for a child.

The non-party is the biological father of the respondent's older child and has developed a close relationship with the subject child through his co-parenting arrangement with the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the non-party did not meet the statutory criteria under the Children's Law Reform Act or the procedural requirements under the Family Law Rules for being added as a party or for intervention.

The court held that the non-party had no legal interest in the application and that his presence was not necessary to determine the issues between the applicant and respondent.

This decision concerns an appeal by James Brent Maxwell from an arbitration award regarding child support, retroactive child support, and costs, following a lengthy family law dispute with Lynne La Fontaine.

The court reviews the arbitrator’s findings on income imputation, retroactive support, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly regarding support for adult children attending post-secondary education away from home.

The court finds that while the arbitrator made a reviewable error by failing to conduct a proper analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines for adult children living away from home, most other findings were within her discretion.

The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for further submissions on quantification if the parties cannot resolve the issue.

This case involves a dispute between D.P. (father) and K.G. (mother) regarding parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for their child, L.P., born in 2019.

The parties had a brief common-law relationship and entered into several separation agreements.

D.P. sought joint decision-making, expanded parenting time, and termination of spousal support, while K.G. sought sole decision-making, continued spousal support, and higher imputed income for D.P. The court found K.G. to have made false allegations against D.P. and to be intentionally underemployed.

The court ordered joint decision-making, adopted D.P.'s proposed parenting schedule, imputed incomes for both parties, and terminated spousal support, offsetting it with K.G.'s credit card debt to D.P.