Maria Lucarelli

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim access to her child, who resided primarily with the respondent paternal grandmother.

The grandmother had suspended access due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The court found no evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to the virus and noted that access should continue as ordered provided emergency orders are followed.

The court ordered that parenting time resume in accordance with the parties' prior parenting agreement.

The court determined costs following a 23.5-day family law trial and a 9.5-day contempt motion.

The respondent was successful on the contempt motion and was awarded $27,940 in costs.

The applicant was the overall successful party at trial and served a formal offer to settle that triggered full recovery costs for the latter portion of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $99,100 in costs for the trial.

After setting off the amounts, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net costs award of $71,160.

The parties separated in 2010 after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant mother was charged with assaulting one of the children in 2012, leading to a 21-month period of no contact and the respondent father assuming primary care.

Following reconciliation counselling, the mother sought equal time-sharing and parallel parenting, while the father sought sole custody.

The court found that both parents were capable but unable to communicate effectively due to intense conflict.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime, allocating specific decision-making areas to each parent, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court also resolved outstanding child and spousal support issues, ordering the father to pay a set-off amount of child support going forward and terminating spousal support after a transition period.

The parties were involved in a protracted, high-conflict family law trial regarding custody and access.

Pending the release of full reasons for judgment, the court issued an advance ruling on the issue of 2016 Christmas holiday time-sharing.

The applicant mother sought equal time-sharing over the holidays, while the respondent father sought to limit her time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court found that the mother had made significant strides in addressing past concerns and had re-established a meaningful bond with the children.

The court ordered that the 2016 Christmas school break be shared equally between the parties, structured to ensure the children spent no more than three consecutive overnights with the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of three temporary supervised access orders.

The mother alleged the father engaged in a campaign of parental alienation and deliberately thwarted the implementation of her access to their two children.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the temporary orders in question had been superseded by a subsequent order and were no longer live and operative.

Furthermore, the court found that the father had not engaged in alienating behaviour, but rather acted out of legitimate protectiveness for the children's emotional well-being.

The court also concluded that the mother failed to use contempt as a remedy of last resort and that the father had taken reasonable steps to facilitate access.