Mahzulfah Shahzia Uppal

This decision resolves a family law dispute between Parmjot K. Kounsil and Harpreet Singh Kounsil, addressing issues including the date of separation, property in Alberta, primary residence and decision-making for the child K., parental communication, transportation, alcohol use, relocation, travel, income imputation, child and spousal support, health and life insurance, supervision costs, and costs of the proceeding.

The court finds the date of separation to be March 2018, orders sole decision-making to the mother, imputes minimum wage income to the father for certain years, and makes detailed orders on child support, health coverage, and other matters.

The applicant mother obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody and discretionary access to the respondent father, alleging physical discipline and anger issues.

On review of the ex parte order and the father's cross-motion for custody and access, the court vacated the ex parte order.

The court found no current need for supervised access, noting the father admitted to a single incident of inappropriate discipline and promised not to repeat it.

The court granted the mother interim custody and the father unsupervised access every other weekend and midweek, emphasizing the need for both parents to co-parent without involving the children in their conflict.

The applicant sought custody of two children and sought to restrict the respondent's access to supervised visits only, citing concerns about physical discipline and anger management.

The respondent sought to restore what he characterized as the status quo of every weekend access.

The court found that the status quo was the applicant having custody with the respondent exercising weekend access and paying chart child support.

The court rejected the applicant's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence to warrant such restriction.

The court established an access schedule of every other weekend and midweek Wednesday visits, with special Christmas access provisions.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents supporting the children's relationship with the other parent and discouraged cross-examination of children about their time with the other parent.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate child support for one child, recalculate child support, and fix arrears for Section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought payment of Section 7 expenses and ongoing support for the other child.

The court terminated child support for the elder child as of August 1, 2012.

The applicant's claim for Section 7 expenses was largely denied due to her non-compliance with a prior court order requiring consent and receipts, except for $8,000 for extracurriculars and $1,500 for uninsured medical expenses.

The respondent's child support overpayment of $19,317 was recognized and offset by the $9,500 owed to the applicant.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to prior settlement agreements and disclosure obligations.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of child care expenses for services provided by the maternal grandmother.

The father opposed paying for care provided by a family member and sought increased access.

The court applied the principles from McLaughlin, finding that because the grandmother had foregone employment to care for the children and her dominant activity during the mother's working hours was child care, she was entitled to remuneration.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the grandmother's discounted weekly rate.

The father's request for increased access was dismissed as a recent order already provided alternate weekend overnight access.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and section 7 expenses, seeking to impute income to the respondent father who claimed to be unemployed.

The court drew an adverse inference against the respondent due to evidence of hidden income and past fraudulent income declarations.

The court ordered the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust to be transferred to the applicant for child support.

The respondent's request for supervised access was granted on consent, at his own expense.