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 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.

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.

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.

The applicant sought full recovery costs after an interim order granted her significant child and spousal support, a non-depletion order, and other relief, based on the respondent's significantly higher income.

The respondent argued for divided success.

The court found the applicant more successful on major issues, particularly spousal support and the non-depletion order, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, considering the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and counsel's reasonable rates.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, determination of Section 7 expenses, a non-depletion order against the husband's corporation, and financial disclosure.

The respondent husband disputed support quantum, sought income imputation for the wife, and opposed the non-depletion order.

The court determined the husband's income for support, declined to impute income to the wife, set ongoing child and spousal support, specified Section 7 expenses, issued a non-depletion order for $500,000 against the husband's corporation, and ordered specific financial disclosure.

Retroactive support claims were reserved for trial.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for child support, while the Respondent also sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, their behaviour, and the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's offer was less favourable than the final order, and her expectations were deemed unrealistic.

The Respondent's offer was closer to the final order but did not meet formal requirements.

The Respondent was found to have breached a prior divorce order by failing to provide financial disclosure, leading to the Applicant incurring legal costs.

Considering both parties' conduct, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, and a sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes by adding back capital cost allowance for real property and unreasonably deducted home-use expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered from 2009, based on the date formal notice was provided, rather than 2007 as sought by the mother or 2010 as offered by the father.

Ongoing child support was set based on an imputed annual income of $100,000.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionally, but specific post-secondary expense orders were deferred due to a lack of evidence.

The father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure was noted as blameworthy conduct.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to find the applicant mother in contempt of a final order regarding a parenting schedule.

The father alleged the mother failed to revert to the original two-week rotation after a temporary four-week schedule, which he claimed was time-limited.

The court found no evidence that the agreed-upon change to the four-week rotation was time-limited and determined that once a change is agreed, it remains in effect until a further agreement or court order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The court also provided guidance on parental cooperation regarding children's activities, emphasizing joint decision-making and ensuring children's attendance at activities.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking historical child support arrears and an order for the respondent father to add the children as beneficiaries to his employee benefits.

The father sought to suspend child support due to unemployment and argued for reduced support during periods when one child attended a residential school and during an alleged period of joint shared custody.

The court found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances to reduce child support during the academic terms, distinguishing the case from situations involving adult children in post-secondary education and reaffirming that residential school attendance does not automatically trigger the 40% shared custody rule.

The court also found no agreement for joint custody during the disputed three-month period in 2014.

The father was ordered to pay $18,927 in arrears.

Issues regarding ongoing child support from January 2015 and annual review provisions were adjourned.

Motion by a respondent to vary prior family law orders respecting parenting time, child support, and spousal support.

The court rejected both parties’ proposed parenting schedules due to impracticality arising from the father’s atypical work schedule and instead crafted a schedule tied to the father’s extended periods off work.

Child support was ordered to be calculated using the offset method due to variable parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from changes in the parties’ incomes and terminated spousal support effective December 1, 2012.

The father was also ordered to reimburse half of specified daycare expenses and maintain a previously agreed equalization payment.

Following competing interim family law motions concerning parenting arrangements, schooling, extracurricular activities, and related issues, the court determined costs.

The parties achieved mixed success on the underlying motions, though the respondent father was found to have been more successful overall.

The court considered the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules, the absence of an offer to settle by the applicant mother, and the conduct of both parties during the litigation.

While both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, the court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The father was awarded fixed costs payable by the mother.

Following settlement of family law issues prior to a settlement conference, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

The applicant argued the respondent negotiated unreasonably throughout the litigation, causing delays and unnecessary legal expenses, while the respondent contended that the applicant prolonged the matter and rejected reasonable settlement offers.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court examined the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of settlement positions, and the progression of mediation and negotiations.

The court found the applicant consistently attempted to resolve the dispute reasonably and that the respondent could have avoided litigation by accepting earlier proposals.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties’ two children, school changes, and enrollment of the son in a different hockey association.

The respondent father brought a cross‑motion seeking to maintain shared parenting arrangements, different school placements, and access orders consistent with a custody evaluation report.

The court found that both parents contributed to escalating conflict and that the mother had attempted to undermine the father’s relationship with the son, including encouraging school and extracurricular changes aligned with her new residence and partner.

Relying heavily on the custody evaluation report, the court maintained shared parenting for the daughter, ordered counselling to address the damaged father‑son relationship, and rejected the requested relocation of the son’s school and hockey program.

Multiple interim parenting directions were imposed, including restrictions on parental communications and prohibitions on criticizing the other parent in the children’s presence.

On an interim custody motion following separation, the father sought shared parenting while the mother sought to maintain the existing arrangement that limited the father’s parenting time.

The court considered the principle that interim orders should generally preserve the true status quo unless the child’s best interests require otherwise.

The judge found the relevant status quo was the parenting arrangement prior to the father being required to leave the matrimonial home, where both parents had significant involvement in caregiving.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence and both parents’ demonstrated commitment to the child, the court ordered an interim shared parenting regime with alternating weeks.

The court also ordered that the child’s daycare not be changed pending further order and that daycare costs be shared equally.