Martha Ann Tweedie

At a family settlement conference, neither side uploaded required conference materials to the proper Case Center bundle despite repeated prior non-compliance in the same proceeding.

After hearing submissions, the court applied Family Law Rule 24(11) and the governing practice directions requiring timely and correct uploading of materials.

The court held that counsel, not the court, bear responsibility for proper uploads and that repeated failures wasted scarce judicial resources and frustrated the primary objective under Rule 2.

The court made personal cost-consequence orders against both counsel, prohibiting them from charging specified fees and disbursements tied to the wasted conference date.

This decision resolves a family law trial between Tammy Sundberg and Kevin Sundberg, addressing the date of separation, equalization of property, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court determined the date of separation as September 7, 2020, and ordered an equalization payment, child support, and spousal support, with detailed analysis of income imputation, property division, and section 7 expenses.

The court also addressed the costs of a business valuator report and declined to order occupation rent or prejudgment interest.

This decision addresses parenting time, joint decision-making, family violence, and property issues between Chevdet Alievski and Xhensila Alievski.

The court found that both parties are capable parents but that the mother was subjected to controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour during the marriage.

The court ordered joint decision-making, with the mother having the final say in the event of an impasse (except where a professional is involved), and implemented a 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed property division, including the treatment of a joint account and a $40,000 exclusion, and declined to award prejudgment interest.

This case addresses the decision-making regime and parenting schedule for a child born in March 2022.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and a gradual increase in the respondent father's parenting time.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and a more expanded parenting schedule.

The court found the mother's testimony lacked credibility and noted her history of limiting the father's access and disrespect for court processes.

Conversely, the father was found credible and supportive of co-parenting.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximizing time with both parents, ordered joint decision-making and adopted the father's proposed parenting schedule, dismissing the mother's request for a gradual increase.

This family law trial addressed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children of the marriage and one child from a previous relationship.

The court found both parents contributed to high conflict and poor communication, negatively impacting the children.

The mother was granted sole decision-making, with the father having sole decision-making for Liam's haircuts.

Primary residence for the children remained with the mother, but the father's parenting time with Liam was increased, and a graduated schedule for Keira was ordered to facilitate relationship repair.

The court also found the mother stood in the place of a parent to the father's child from a previous relationship, Kacean, and calculated child support arrears, resulting in a net amount owed by the mother to the father.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause but mandated co-parenting counseling.

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo was ordered to pay costs to the respondent mother, J.P., following a successful motion by the mother for child placement.

While the Society's position on the underlying motion was deemed reasonable, the court found several procedural failings on its part, including inadequate information gathering regarding the father's incarceration, improper delegation of decision-making to another CAS, insufficient assessment of the proposed placement plan, and failure to disclose the father's partner's child protection involvement.

These failings were deemed "patently unfair and indefensible," justifying the costs award.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement, claiming he accepted an offer to settle attached to the respondent's settlement conference brief.

The respondent opposed, arguing the offer was outdated and implicitly withdrawn by a subsequent, less favorable offer.

The court found that while offers attached to settlement briefs are enforceable, the later offer, which left child support unresolved, implicitly withdrew the earlier, more comprehensive offer.

Consequently, the applicant's acceptance of the original offer did not form a binding contract, and his motion was dismissed.