Lloyd St. Amand

The father brought a motion to change a 2014 final order to seek joint decision-making and equal parenting time for the parties' two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to maintain her sole decision-making authority and the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The court found that the mother had unjustifiably marginalized the father's role in the children's lives and failed to communicate important information regarding their health and education.

While the court declined to order joint decision-making due to the high level of conflict, it ordered that the mother retain sole decision-making subject to a robust duty to consult the father.

The court also granted the father's request for equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 rotating schedule, finding it in the children's best interests to maximize their time with him.

The Applicant (Mother) sought costs for her successful motion, where she was granted interim sole custody, child support, and sale of matrimonial property, and the Respondent's (Father's) cross-motion was dismissed.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale, finding the Father's conduct, including inflammatory accusations, use of surveillance, and inappropriate presentation of evidence, to be unreasonable and in bad faith.

The Mother's costs were fixed at $3,373.93.

The applicant sought a finding that the respondent stood in the place of a parent to one child (Sarah) and requested child support in the amount of $342.00 per month, as well as an order requiring the respondent to meet the children's medical needs.

The respondent sought temporary custody of his biological child (Olivia) or, alternatively, joint custody with primary residence.

The court found that the respondent stood in loco parentis to Sarah based on the Chartier factors, including his financial contributions, daily caregiving, representation as a parent, and the child's lack of relationship with her biological father.

However, the court ordered reduced interim child support of $200.00 per month rather than the guideline amount, given the lack of evidence regarding other financial resources available to the child.

The respondent's motion for custody or primary residence of Olivia was dismissed as not being in the child's best interests on an interim basis.

Grandparents sought interim access to their granddaughter following the respondent mother's unilateral termination of all contact in April 2018.

The court applied the three-part test from Chapman v. Chapman to determine whether grandparent access was in the child's best interests.

While the court found that a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship had existed, it concluded that by the time of termination, the relationship had become negative from the child's perspective due to the irreconcilable conflict between the mother and grandmother.

The court found that the child had been alienated from her grandparents and emotionally impacted by the ongoing conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for access, finding that court-ordered access against the mother's will would not be in the child's best interests and would cause stress and emotional upset.

This is a costs decision following a two-day trial in a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought to terminate child support for one child and suspend it for another, claiming a change in circumstances due to health issues preventing continued employment.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought recovery of section 7 expenses.

The court found a change in circumstances for 2016 but imputed income on the applicant from 2017 onward based on intentional underemployment.

The respondent was substantially more successful at trial.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 (inclusive) to the respondent, accounting for divided success on less dominant issues and the applicant's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure and failure to provide an offer to settle.

Motion to change child support brought by the payor seeking to vary his child support obligation and adjust arrears.

The payor claimed a significant change in circumstances due to mental health issues arising from his employment at a correctional facility, which led to his involuntary hospitalization and subsequent departure from that employment.

The court found a change in circumstances for 2016 but determined the payor was intentionally underemployed from 2017 onward.

Income was imputed at $60,000 based on the payor's previous employment with the Canada Border Services Agency, which remained available to him.

Child support was varied accordingly, with reduced amounts during periods when children attended school away from home.

Section 7 expenses for post-secondary education were partially awarded, with a proportional split of 67% to the payor and 33% to the recipient.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child born in April 2012 to parents who separated in June 2015.

The mother sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the father, child and spousal support, supervised exchanges, and a restraining order.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with liberal access to the father on a structured schedule.

The court found the father engaged in persistent harassment and malicious communications designed to undermine the mother's parenting role, while the mother had attempted to establish appropriate boundaries.

The court awarded child support and limited spousal support, and declined to grant a restraining order, instead imposing specific communication restrictions under the Children's Law Reform Act.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including custody and access for two children, spousal and child support, and division of property.

The Applicant mother's allegations of spousal and child abuse were largely rejected by the court, which found her claims fabricated and her actions detrimental to the children's relationship with the Respondent father.

The court prioritized the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents and siblings.

Custody of one child was awarded to the father, and a plan for counselling was ordered to re-establish the other child's relationship with the father.

The mother was found to be underemployed, and her income was imputed for child support purposes.

Spousal support was denied due to a lack of financial interweaving and interdependence during the cohabitation.

Property division for the jointly held home was limited to the mother's direct financial contribution.

This trial concerned parenting and financial issues following a high-conflict marital breakdown.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time for the youngest child (Hakuin, 10) and custody of the middle child (Sophi, 16), while the respondent mother sought custody or shared custody of the three younger children and a therapeutic intervention for the older children who were estranged from her.

The court considered extensive professional evidence regarding parental alienation and justified rejection.

The court granted the father sole custody of Sophi, respecting her wishes given her age.

For Hakuin, the court maintained the status quo, with primary residence with the mother and the father's existing access schedule, finding this offered the best chance for Hakuin to maintain relationships with both parents despite concerns about sibling influence and parental alienation.

On financial matters, the court imputed income to both parents for child support calculations, ordered child support payments between them for Sophi and Hakuin, and granted spousal support to the mother.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, with proceeds divided after adjustments.

Following a motion addressing custody, access, and child support issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

The applicant was substantially successful on two major issues, including custody and child support, while the respondent obtained expanded access and succeeded on certain ancillary matters.

The court considered the parties’ litigation conduct, including settlement offers and correspondence regarding child support obligations.

Finding that both parties acted somewhat unreasonably and that the result of the motion was mixed, the court exercised its discretion to award partial costs to the applicant.

Costs decision following motions in a family law parenting dispute involving whether a Section 30 assessment should be ordered.

The court held that the issue of obtaining a Section 30 assessment dominated the litigation and that the respondent on the motion was the successful party.

Although the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules, the court reduced the amount to reflect divided success on some parenting issues, inadmissible affidavit evidence, and abandoned claims.

The court fixed costs on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parties had a high-conflict separation, with the father alleging the mother was abusive and the mother alleging the father was alienating the children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) became involved and recommended a section 30 assessment.

The court applied the criteria from Glick v. Cale and found that an assessment was warranted given the toxic family dynamic and the children's stress.

The court ordered the assessment and varied the temporary order to suspend overnight access for the two older children with the mother, pending the assessment's completion.

The responding parent sought a retroactive variation of a child support order that had been based on earlier income figures and provided for annual financial disclosure and recalculation of support.

The court held that the order’s adjustment clause should be enforced and recalculated the set‑off child support amounts based on updated income figures, including imputing income to the other parent based on concession.

Allegations that the payor’s retirement or the other parent’s business expenses justified further imputation were rejected for lack of evidence.

The court also addressed claims for extraordinary expenses, finding tutoring expenses reasonable and payable but denying reimbursement for camp expenses because prior consent required by the order had not been obtained.