Mark A. Shields

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support for their six-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary care, alleging the mother was neglectful and held unconventional beliefs.

The court found both parents capable but noted their toxic relationship and inability to communicate effectively.

The court granted the mother final decision-making authority on major health and education issues if the parties could not agree, and established a parenting schedule giving the mother primary care (16 overnights per 28-day cycle) and the father 12 overnights.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

In this family law trial, Patricia Zacher sought to establish beneficial ownership of a property (14 Steeplechase) legally held by her adult dependent daughter, Nichola Zacher, and to divide Robert Zacher's in-pay CN pension, as well as ongoing spousal support.

The court dismissed Patricia's claims, finding that the property was a gift to Nichola, and that further pension division or spousal support would constitute impermissible "double-dipping" given the prior equalization of net family property and Patricia's substantial assets.

Interim spousal support was ordered to end December 1, 2019.

The parties separated after a 14-year relationship and contested custody of their 8-year-old child, as well as support and equalization.

The applicant father sought joint custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

Relying on the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's expressed preferences, the court ordered joint custody, finding the mother's animosity toward the father would likely impede maximum contact if she were granted sole custody.

The court also imputed $15,000 of pre-tax corporate income to the father, equalizing the parties' incomes and resulting in no child or spousal support being payable.

Finally, the court determined the mother had no legal interest in the matrimonial home and could not claim half its mortgage as a debt.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim custody, and child and spousal support.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion for similar relief but ultimately argued for the status quo, as the parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year.

The court applied section 24 of the Family Law Act and found that the best interests of the children were being met by the status quo, as there was little evidence of conflict affecting them.

Both the motion and cross-motion for exclusive possession were dismissed, rendering interim custody and support orders unnecessary.

The parties separated after an incident of domestic violence resulting in the applicant father's conviction for assault.

At trial, the parties settled most issues via Minutes of Settlement, leaving the location for child exchanges and decision-making authority for education to be determined.

The court ordered exchanges to occur at the child's daycare and granted the respondent mother final decision-making authority over education.

Furthermore, the court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to override a mandatory mediation/arbitration clause in the Minutes of Settlement, finding it contrary to the child's best interests given the history of domestic violence and the mother's fear of the father.

A separated couple disputed two remaining parenting issues concerning their young child: the location for parenting exchanges and which parent should make decisions about the child’s education.

The court found that exchanges should occur at the child’s daycare, where the child was comfortable and settled.

Given the parties’ inability to communicate, the mother was granted final decision‑making authority regarding the child’s schooling within the local area after consultation with the father.

The court also scrutinized settlement terms requiring mandatory mediation and arbitration for future disputes, concluding that strict enforcement could undermine the best interests of the child where domestic violence and power imbalance concerns existed.

The court modified the dispute‑resolution provisions to permit mediation, arbitration, or court proceedings where appropriate.