Mary A. Fraser

The applicant mother sought primary care, sole decision-making authority, and permission to relocate the parties' nine-year-old child to Armstrong, B.C. The respondent father opposed the relocation and requested shared parenting and joint decision-making.

The court granted the mother's request, finding that the mother has always been the primary caregiver, the father has historically minimized his violent behavior, and the relocation offered a more stable environment for the child in her mother's care.

The father was ordered to have in-person parenting time with the child during summer and school breaks.

The applicant and respondent were in a romantic relationship and lived together at a property solely owned by the respondent.

The respondent provided the down payment, while the applicant contributed significant unpaid labour to renovate the property.

After the parties separated, the respondent sold the property and retained the net proceeds.

The applicant brought a claim for unjust enrichment.

The court found that the applicant's labour conferred a benefit on the respondent with a corresponding deprivation and no juristic reason.

The court concluded the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a monetary remedy calculated on a value surviving basis, entitling him to half of the adjusted net proceeds of the sale.

In a family law proceeding arising from the breakdown of a 13-year common law relationship, the court addressed competing motions concerning property rights, child support, and protective orders.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the matrimonial home, a non-dissipation order, child support, and disclosure of insurance information.

The respondent sought dismissal of the Certificate application and the exclusive possession order, and opposed child support.

The court granted the Certificate of Pending Litigation based on a reasonable claim to an interest in the property grounded in unjust enrichment principles, terminated the exclusive possession order by consent, declined to grant a non-dissipation order, deferred child support pending the respondent's return to employment, and ordered disclosure of insurance details and financial statements.

The court considered a motion by Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County for a temporary care and custody order regarding B.T., a 7-year-old child.

The Society sought to place B.T. with his paternal aunt and uncle, D.D. and J.D., subject to supervision, with access to the parents, A.R. and A.T., at the Society’s discretion.

The parents opposed and sought B.T.’s return to their care.

The court reviewed the background, including prior Society involvement, substance misuse concerns, and the child’s special needs.

Applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and relevant case law, the court found credible and trustworthy evidence of risk of harm if B.T. were returned to his parents and concluded that B.T. could not be adequately protected in their care, even with supervision.

The court ordered B.T. to remain in the temporary care of D.D. and J.D., with supervised access to the parents.

This decision resolves parenting, decision-making, and child support issues for the parties’ 14-year-old daughter, C.M., following a lengthy family law proceeding.

The court orders a week-about shared parenting arrangement, joint decision-making with tie-breaker authority in specific domains, and imputes income to the applicant for child support purposes.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the best interests of the child, the legislative framework under the Divorce Act, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The decision addresses two contested issues in a family law motion: (1) whether income should be imputed to the Respondent, Shannon Turner Zaharia, for the purpose of determining temporary child support, and (2) whether the proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned property at 86 Woodland Crescent, Petawawa, Ontario, should be paid out to the parties or held in trust pending further order.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent at this interim stage, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds from the sale of the property be held in trust pending further order or agreement, given the outstanding determination of equalization entitlement.

The court considered whether to bifurcate the issue of the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement from the remaining family law claims following the parties’ separation.

The Applicant sought to have the Agreement declared void and advanced claims for spousal support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and a trust in the matrimonial home.

The Respondent moved to have the validity of the Agreement determined first.

The court reviewed the legal framework for bifurcation, including the relevant rules and case law, and concluded that the validity of the Agreement was a discrete, threshold issue.

The court ordered that the issue of validity be tried first, finding this approach would be just, expeditious, and cost-effective, and would not prejudice either party.

The respondent brought a motion seeking unsupervised or supervised parenting time with the parties' two children.

The applicant opposed unsupervised access and sought supervised access through professional services, also bringing a cross-motion to impute income to the respondent for child support purposes.

The court, considering allegations of family violence and the children's best interests, ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the respondent by his uncle, finding this a sufficient and proportionate response to safety concerns.

The court dismissed the applicant's cross-motion to impute income, concluding that the respondent was not intentionally underemployed or unemployed given his termination due to criminal charges and his efforts to start a new business.

The Applicant, Amanda Brandi Nicole Cameron, and the Respondent, William Craig Vincent, were in a common-law relationship and separated.

The primary outstanding issue was whether the Respondent was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the Applicant, specifically regarding his employment pension, under the doctrine of joint family venture.

The Applicant sought compensation via pension division or a monetary award.

The court found that the Respondent was unjustly enriched, concluding that a monetary award calculated on a "value surviving" basis was appropriate, but declined to order a specific division of the pension.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $104,125 as compensation for the unjust enrichment, to be disbursed from the proceeds of the jointly owned home.

This urgent motion and cross-motion concerned the primary residence and schooling of the parties' four-year-old child, Zakaria.

The parents, residing in Ottawa and Cambridge respectively, had previously shared equal parenting time.

The dispute arose when the Applicant unilaterally enrolled Zakaria in an Ottawa school and withheld the child, despite the Respondent's prior efforts to formalize an agreement for Zakaria to attend school in Cambridge.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Divorce Act, found the Applicant's unilateral actions disruptive and uncooperative.

The court ordered Zakaria to reside primarily with the Respondent in Cambridge and attend Chalmers Street Public School, establishing an interim parenting schedule that allows the Applicant extended weekend time, even if it means the child misses school days.

The Applicant was also ordered to serve the divorce application promptly.

This 8-day trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' 5-year-old son.

Key issues included the parenting schedule, travel restrictions, relocation restrictions, holiday parenting time, decision-making authority, and imputation of income for child support.

The court ordered a shared 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, prioritizing the applicant's work schedule.

The respondent was restricted from international travel with the child without the applicant's consent, and the applicant was granted possession of the child's passport.

Restrictions were also placed on future residential moves and school changes for both parties.

Decision-making for medical/health was made joint with the respondent having final say in case of disagreement, and for education was joint with the applicant having final say.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, finding her intentionally under-employed.

The Respondent father sought orders for additional summer parenting time, delivery of a canoe, Annika's iPhone password, and adjustment of child support payments.

The court dismissed the requests for expanded parenting time and travel, emphasizing the children's best interests and the principle against varying interim orders without a substantial change in circumstances.

The child support issue was resolved by consent, reducing the father's payments.

The canoe and password issues were also resolved by agreement.

The court noted the extensive litigation history and urged the parties to proceed to trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to dismiss the respondent father's Motion to Change, which disputed paternity and child support obligations.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and failed to advance his motion.

The court applied a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, finding that the respondent's wilful and egregious non-compliance, including failure to provide tax returns and pay cost orders, justified dismissing his Motion to Change.

The court determined that no other remedies would suffice given the exceptional circumstances.

This divorce proceeding addressed child support, section 7 expenses for a child with special needs, and equalization of net family properties.

The court imputed an annual income of $70,000 to the respondent for child support purposes, finding his reported income inaccurate and his underemployment intentional.

The court also found the applicant's claim for the cost of two caregivers for the child to be a reasonable and necessary section 7 expense, to be shared proportionately.

Regarding property equalization, the court determined that a property in Bangladesh, though titled in the respondent's name, was a gift from his father and thus excluded from his net family property.

The respondent's claim for an unequal division of net family properties, based on alleged pre-separation debt, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The parties were directed to finalize net family property calculations based on the court's findings.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

The Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), on behalf of Shannon Brown, brought a motion for a Warrant of Committal against Trevor Dubeau for failing to comply with a 2016 default order regarding child support arrears, which had accumulated to over $83,000.

Dubeau claimed inability to pay due to unemployment since 2015, a house fire, and living with parents in a rural area with poor internet and no driver's license.

The court found Dubeau's explanations lacked evidence of efforts to find employment or disability, concluding he was purposefully underemployed and his non-payment was wilful and deliberate.

The court granted the motion, ordering Dubeau's incarceration for 180 intermittent days until the arrears are cured or payment arrangements are made.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, Ontario, and for disclosure of Family and Children’s Services records.

The respondent mother opposed, having unilaterally relocated the child to Grafton, Ontario, citing safety concerns and alleged abuse by the father.

The court found the respondent failed to provide proper notice of relocation as required by the Divorce Act and that her allegations of abuse were not sufficiently corroborated to excuse this requirement.

Applying the best interests of the child framework under the Divorce Act and principles from Plumley v. Plumley, the court ordered the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the child's accustomed routine and relationship with both parents.

Disclosure of FCSRC records was also ordered.

This is a costs decision following an 8-day trial in a family law proceeding that addressed parenting, relocation, decision-making, spousal support, and child support.

The court applied the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

Success was divided: the applicant succeeded on parenting and relocation issues, while the respondent succeeded on financial issues, specifically regarding the applicant's attempt to cap the respondent's income.

Neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14).

The court found the parties' positions not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The applicant was awarded partial costs of $30,000 due to their relative success on the parenting and relocation issues, which consumed a significant portion of the trial time.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to return the child's residence to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and for orders regarding equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking to maintain the child's residence in Westmeath and for sole decision-making.

The court declined to order the child's return to the GTA, finding the mother's initial relocation was not intended to be permanent and the father had acquiesced by delaying his motion.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to preserve his relationship with the child but did not grant the mother sole decision-making, instead ordering joint decision-making on major issues.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the established status quo in Westmeath.

This was a trial addressing various family law issues following the separation of the parties, including parenting arrangements, child relocation, decision-making authority, child support, and spousal support.

The court denied the respondent's request to relocate the child from Ottawa to Sarnia, finding it not to be in the child's best interests due to the significant disruption and impact on the child's relationship with the applicant and paternal extended family.

The existing shared parenting time schedule was largely maintained.

Decision-making responsibility was ordered to be joint.

For support, the court determined that spousal support was payable indefinitely on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, with the quantum calculated at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and including the applicant's post-separation income increases.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $35,000 annually from 2022.

Child support was ordered based on a set-off of the parties' respective incomes, with no ceiling applied.

An agreed-upon equalization payment was confirmed, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold.