Marc J. Coderre

This decision addresses two motions in a family law context.

The applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession to prepare for the sale.

The respondent filed a counter-motion seeking to establish the date of separation, a timeline for equalization of net family property, and court directives on the impact of prior separations on pension division and equalization.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant and that the sale would not prejudice the respondent's equalization interests, with a portion of proceeds to be held in trust.

However, the court denied the applicant's request for exclusive possession, noting it is an exceptional remedy not warranted at this stage.

The respondent's counter-motion regarding the separation date and equalization directives was dismissed, as these issues require a full evidentiary record at trial.

The court also declined to set a timeline for equalization but encouraged alternative dispute resolution.

The respondent was reminded to comply with a prior child support order.

The respondent, Rene Faucher, brought a motion to change seeking shared decision-making, equal shared parenting time, and child support based on s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including a retroactive adjustment.

The applicant, Dianne Douglas, opposed the increase in parenting time and sought sole decision-making.

The court found that the respondent's parenting time had exceeded 40% since 2017 and granted a retroactive child support adjustment in his favour, effective January 1, 2018.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's request to transition to equal parenting time, citing the children's settled routine, their age, and the protracted duration of the status quo.

The applicant's request for sole decision-making was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim due to persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure, child support payments, and supervised access arrangements.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of non-compliance, including delays in providing financial statements, tax returns, business records, and medical reports, as well as arrears in child support and unpaid costs awards.

While acknowledging the respondent's significant delays, the court ultimately dismissed the motion to strike, deeming it an exceptional remedy.

Instead, the court granted alternative relief under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, imposing specific deadlines for outstanding disclosure, precluding the respondent from filing further evidence on certain items, and restricting his ability to seek further court orders until compliance.

The court emphasized the children's best interests in allowing the matter to proceed to trial.

The parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought $8,398.27 in costs, while the respondent father sought $18,146.03.

The court found that success was divided, with the father being only slightly more successful but having engaged in some unreasonable litigation conduct.

Considering all circumstances, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The mother brought an application for a parenting order, and the father was noted in default.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 11-year-old child, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time during the school year and shared parenting in the summer.

The court also granted a divorce and awarded the mother $2,000 in costs, while adjourning the newly raised issue of child support to a later date.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a final order for child and spousal support arrears and ongoing payments.

The court found the applicant's intention to appeal was not continuous, the grounds for appeal were weak, and the applicant had failed to comply with previous orders and pay support.

The court determined that granting the extension was not in the interest of justice, given the applicant's lack of good faith and the prejudice suffered by the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to change a spousal support order, seeking termination of obligations, rescission of arrears, and cancellation of life insurance security, citing a material change in circumstances due to his business and personal bankruptcies and subsequent financial hardship.

The applicant opposed, arguing no material change.

The court found a material change had occurred, noting the respondent's severe financial difficulties and the applicant's accumulated wealth and self-sufficiency.

The motion was granted, terminating spousal support and cancelling all arrears.

In a Motion to Change proceeding, the moving party sought to file a reply affidavit after the responding party delivered a 340-page affidavit shortly before the hearing.

The responding party objected, arguing the Family Law Rules do not explicitly authorize reply affidavits on Motions to Change.

The court held that while the Rules do not explicitly authorize a right of reply, it is common practice and necessary for fairness, especially given the responding party's late filing and the long delay caused by the pandemic.

The moving party was permitted to file a reply affidavit limited to new matters.

The applicant father brought a motion to restore equal shared parenting time, while the respondent mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority following unverified allegations of inappropriate touching by the father's older son.

The court found discrepancies in the mother's evidence regarding the separation date and the allegations.

Given the children's school registration and the distance between the parents' residences, the court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother during the week and with the father on weekends, pending an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following a successful motion regarding parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs of $6,020.64.

The respondent argued financial hardship.

The court considered the respondent's litigation conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees incurred.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,000 at a rate of $100 per month, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding equalization, alleging a mistake in the valuation of her pension.

The applicant claimed her actuary was provided incorrect information regarding her pension buyback status, resulting in an overvaluation of her pension and a lower equalization payment from the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the pension administrator provided the incorrect information to the actuary, and concluding that the mistake was not mutual and did not negate the common intention of the parties at the time of the settlement.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief regarding parenting time, child support, and life insurance.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had not filed responding materials, requested an adjournment, which the court denied due to delay and lack of prejudice.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time exchanges and ordered the respondent to disclose his life insurance details.

For child support, the court included the respondent's CERB and RRSP income in his 2020 income, setting child support at $478 per month and ordering the payment of arrears.

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and temporary decision-making authority for the parties' 16-month-old child, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and unsupervised parenting time.

Both parties alleged abusive conduct and mental health issues against the other.

The court found cogent evidence that the child's safety was at risk in the mother's unsupervised care due to her mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and blackouts.

The court granted the father temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time and undergo a psychological evaluation.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The parties separated following an incident leading to the father's arrest for assault.

The children remained with the mother.

The father brought an interim motion seeking shared custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo and sought child support.

The court dismissed the father's request for equal parenting time, finding that modifying the long-standing interim regime before trial was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered the father to pay child support of $890 per month and directed pro rata sharing of special expenses.

The parties, Frederick Kaszap (applicant) and Amber Volk (respondent), were involved in a high-conflict parenting dispute concerning their two children, M. (12) and C. (8).

The applicant sought reunification counselling for M., who refused contact with him, and opposed the respondent's request for sole custody of both children.

The respondent opposed reunification counselling for M. and sought sole custody, citing ongoing conflict.

The court granted the respondent sole custody of M., declining to order reunification counselling due to M.'s distress and the lack of a detailed therapeutic proposal.

For C., the court maintained joint custody but granted the respondent sole decision-making authority regarding the frequency of C.'s counselling due to the applicant's uncooperative behaviour.

A neutral third-party mental health professional was ordered to regularly assess M.'s views on contact and counselling.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary order to stay the mother's application to change their son's name from William Jr. Ndze Fuhgeh to William Benjamin Ndze Fuhgeh Bernard.

The father's main application sought to prohibit the mother from changing the child's name without his consent.

The court granted the temporary stay, finding it was not in the child's best interests for the name change application to proceed immediately, as ongoing case-managed matters and the father's main application might clarify relevant issues.

Costs were reserved to the judge overseeing the father's main application.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $55,927.42 for a case conference and two motions, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent regarding jurisdiction and financial disclosure.

The court declined to make a finding of bad faith but awarded substantial indemnity costs for a motion where the respondent needlessly revived a jurisdiction issue.

Recognizing divided success on other issues, including retroactive support and parenting, the court fixed total costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $24,712.05 for fees and $6,261.53 for disbursements, which included the reasonable expense of retaining an accounting expert.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's urgent motion and the applicant's cross-motion regarding the net proceeds from the sale of a home, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party overall, though the respondent achieved divided success on an initial appearance.

Taking into account the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including late service of materials and raising unwarranted procedural hurdles, the court awarded the applicant costs of $6,000.

The Applicant sought various relief, primarily an order for ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support, a parenting schedule for their son, and full financial disclosure from the Respondent.

The court declined to sanction the Respondent for disclosure issues, finding his pursuit of jurisdiction not in bad faith and sufficient information provided for support issues.

The parenting schedule was adjourned due to insufficient evidence.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support from July 1, 2016, calculating amounts based on the parties' incomes and applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting the high-income payor principles.

The Respondent's cash flow arguments were rejected, emphasizing support obligations over personal acquisitions.