Marie-Hélène Godbout

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule and the appointment of a parenting capacity assessor pending trial.

The respondent mother consented to the appointment of the assessor but proposed a more restrictive parenting schedule.

The court ordered the appointment of the agreed-upon assessor with costs shared equally.

Finding no evidence of risk to the child and emphasizing the need to foster the father-child relationship, the court expanded the applicant's parenting time and assumed case management of the proceeding.

The parties, engaged in high conflict litigation over parenting time, consented to a temporary order appointing a parenting coordinator.

The parenting coordinator subsequently issued two interim awards that increased the applicant's parenting time and ordered the appointment of a custody assessor.

The respondent sought to terminate the parenting coordination process and set aside the awards, while the applicant sought to enforce them.

The court found that the parenting coordinator exceeded her jurisdiction by making significant changes to the residential schedule without a mediation/arbitration agreement.

The court set aside the awards, terminated the parenting coordination process, and directed the parties to file written submissions for a temporary parenting schedule.

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 respondent brought a motion for temporary relief, including spousal support and an advance for legal fees, prior to a case conference.

He argued the motion was urgent due to dire financial hardship.

The applicant brought a cross-motion for the unconditional release of the net proceeds from the sale of her home.

The respondent also requested the judge recuse herself for alleged bias after preliminary rulings went against him.

The court dismissed the recusal request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also dismissed both the motion and cross-motion, finding that neither party established the urgency required under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules to proceed before a case conference.

Following a decision on a motion to change and a motion for withdrawal in child protection proceedings, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Applicant Mother sought substantial indemnity costs against the Respondent Father, while the Father sought costs against both the Mother and the Children's Aid Society.

The court denied costs in the child protection proceedings, noting that costs in such matters require more than mere success.

However, the court awarded costs to the Applicant Mother for the motion to change in the divorce proceedings, as she was the substantially successful party.

The court fixed costs at an elevated partial indemnity rate of $28,319.46, sanctioning the Respondent Father for his unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and unnecessary materials.

The parties consented to an interim order incorporating an access and visitation schedule and the report of Julie Guindon.

The respondent was ordered to pay $817 per month in child support for two children based on an annual income of $55,000.

Ms. Guindon was to remain available to assist the parties for 12 months, and the matter was assigned to the judge under the Coordinated Case Management protocol.