Lisa Reeve

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority for his 9-year-old daughter regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

The respondent mother opposed, citing the child's long-standing opposition to all vaccinations, consistent with the mother's beliefs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the child's best interests at present to compel vaccination on an interim basis, considering the child's views, the long-standing status quo of non-vaccination, and the lack of sufficient urgency demonstrated by the applicant.

The court also ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a s. 112 report given the ongoing dispute over vaccination and the mother's request for increased parenting time.

Following a trial where the court declined to set aside a cohabitation agreement, the successful party sought costs of $29,724.65.

The opposing party argued for a reduced award of $12,000 payable at $100 per month due to financial hardship.

The court found the opposing party acted unreasonably during the litigation by insisting on arguing baseless reasons for setting aside the agreement.

However, the court noted some of the claimed fees were already addressed in a prior order or could have been performed by junior staff.

The court ordered costs of $15,000.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement and its spousal support waiver under sections 56(4) and 33(4) of the Family Law Act.

He argued lack of financial disclosure, failure to understand the agreement due to a learning disability and memory lapse, unconscionability, undue influence, and duress.

The court found the husband's claims of memory loss not credible, noted he received adequate independent legal advice, and determined there was no material non-disclosure or unconscionable conduct by the respondent wife.

The court dismissed the claims, upholding the agreement and the spousal support waiver.