Mackenzie Jayne Dean

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking permission to take the parties' 15-year-old daughter on a vacation to the Dominican Republic and to dispense with the respondent father's consent.

The father's position was inconsistent; he initially refused, then claimed he had signed consent, and later withdrew consent when costs were sought.

The court granted the mother's request for the trip, finding it to be in the child's best interests and deeming the father's attempt to barter consent inappropriate.

The issue of costs was adjourned, with a conditional order that if the father fails to provide evidence by a specified date that he had previously signed the consent, costs of $2,000 plus HST would be fixed against him.

The court also clarified that affidavits detailing abusive third-party communications, not attributable to a party, are irrelevant for costs determination.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her motion to introduce fresh evidence, upholding the trial judge's parenting order which included shared parenting time and the father having final decision-making responsibility.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's calculation of the father's income for child support purposes.

However, the Court of Appeal remitted the issue of child support arrears for a six-month period (September 2019 to February 2020) to the trial judge for further consideration, as it was not addressed in the original reasons.

A proposed intervener brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a family law appeal concerning child custody and the best interests of the children.

The appellant consented, but the respondent opposed the motion.

The court acknowledged the proposed intervener's expertise but dismissed the motion, finding that the late timing of the application would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, who would not have adequate time to respond to the intervener's factum before the scheduled appeal hearing.

The parties separated in 2015 and proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of decision-making, parenting time, spousal support, and financial adjustments.

The mother sought sole decision-making and relied on allegations of domestic violence, which the court found to be overstated and not a factor in decision-making.

The court awarded joint decision-making and increased the father's parenting time, though it denied his request for an equal timesharing schedule.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support for a time-limited duration of three further years.

Various financial adjustments to the equalization payment were also ordered.