Martin J. Prost

The appellant mother appealed a contempt finding by the motion judge for withholding the children from the respondent father in violation of a parenting schedule.

The motion judge found the mother in contempt and imposed double make-up time as a penalty, which the mother subsequently complied with.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding the penalty was found to be moot as it had been completed.

The court also upheld the motion judge's continued jurisdiction over the matter in this high-conflict family law case, citing best practice principles.

The applicant wife sought an unequal division of net family property or compensatory spousal support, while the respondent husband sought to exclude his share of a lawsuit settlement from his net family property calculation.

The court found that the husband successfully rebutted the presumption of joint ownership regarding the settlement funds deposited into a joint investment account, allowing him to exclude the majority of the funds on a pro rata basis.

The court dismissed the wife's claims for an unequal division of net family property and spousal support, finding no unconscionability or economic disadvantage.

Following earlier reasons directing that each party bear their own costs except those generated by counsel for the respondent necessitated by the applicant’s self-represented status, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The respondent filed a bill of costs seeking fees and disbursements totalling $2,767.03 including HST.

The applicant disputed certain entries and the inclusion of work allegedly outside the permitted category.

The court accepted that some interactions could not fully be attributed to costs caused by the self-represented status and reduced the claim.

Costs were fixed at $2,300.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting, child support, and property division.

The court found that the mother's unrelenting insistence on her methods and values, and her pursuit of confrontation, caused the children to be in need of protection.

Despite the father's request for shared custody based on parental alienation, the court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, but carved out final decision-making for extracurricular sports to the father to prevent his exclusion.

The court imposed a strict parenting schedule, mandated reconciliation counselling and a parenting coach, and ordered child support and equalization payments.

Following a family law trial involving issues of custody, access, and support, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had been successful on the issue of care and control of the children, while the responding party had been successful on spousal support.

The court considered the parties’ relative success, the reasonableness of their conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.

Finding the moving party more successful overall, the court ordered costs in the amount of $12,500 plus HST, subject to set-off against a retroactive support award.

The court also issued supplementary reasons correcting an omission in the earlier judgment and confirming the parenting arrangement of alternating weekly residence under joint custody.