M. Freeman

This decision concerns costs arising from the Applicant/Father's successful motion for contempt against the Respondent/Mother for breaching a final parenting order.

The Mother was found in contempt in 2021, and penalties, including expanded parenting time for the Father, were ordered in 2024.

The Father sought $28,701 in costs, while the Mother sought $38,137.

The court awarded the Father $20,000 in costs, finding him to be the more successful party overall, despite his offer to settle being more favourable than the final order.

The court declined to set off the costs against child support obligations.

The applicant father sought a reversal of primary parenting time as a penalty after the respondent mother was found in contempt for breaching a final parenting order by denying overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother had not purged her contempt, as she failed to offer make-up time and continued to obstruct the father's parenting role.

However, the court declined to order a reversal of primary parenting time, finding it would not be in the child's best interests given her strong attachment to the mother and the potential for emotional harm.

Instead, the court ordered five weekends of make-up parenting time, expanded summer parenting time for the father, and directed the parties to use a parenting coordinator and communication app to minimize conflict.

The deceased died intestate, leaving his $300,000 life insurance policy to his current wife.

His ex-wife, acting personally and as estate trustee, applied under the Succession Law Reform Act to claw back the policy to support herself and their two children.

The court found the children had a strong legal and moral claim due to outstanding child support and post-secondary expenses, while the ex-wife's claim was weak as she had received a lump sum prior to death and was self-sufficient.

The current wife also had a strong claim as a dependent spouse.

Balancing the claims, the court ordered $250,000 of the policy clawed back for the children's support, with the remaining $50,000 to the current wife.

The applicant, maternal grandmother, sought monthly weekend unsupervised access to her granddaughter (MP) after MP's mother (applicant's daughter) committed suicide.

The respondent father did not oppose access in principle but insisted it be brief and supervised due to concerns about the applicant's past criminal behaviour, alleged alcohol abuse, and unsafe living conditions.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent access, considering deference to parental decisions and the child's best interests.

The court found no positive grandparent-grandchild relationship sufficient to override parental deference and that the father had not acted arbitrarily.

The court ordered supervised access twice monthly for two hours, with a provision for an extended Christmas visit and a mechanism for the applicant to seek variation for more extended overnight access after six visits.

The Musqueam Indian Band surrendered valuable reserve lands to the Crown for lease to a golf club on specific terms approved by the Band.

The Crown subsequently entered into a lease on significantly less favourable terms without consulting the Band.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown's historical responsibility and the statutory scheme of the Indian Act impose a fiduciary duty on the Crown when dealing with surrendered Indian lands.

The Crown breached this fiduciary duty by ignoring the terms approved by the Band, and the Band was awarded $10 million in damages for the lost opportunity to develop the land.

The complainant, a part-time dockhand, alleged that the union and employer breached sections 66(b) and 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union failed to represent him fairly by not consulting part-time employees during bargaining, not negotiating just cause protections for them, and refusing to file a grievance when he was removed from the part-time list.

The Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by failing to consult part-time employees prior to or during collective bargaining.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to negotiate just cause protections and the refusal to file a grievance, finding the union correctly interpreted the collective agreement as not providing substantive discharge protections for part-time employees.

The section 66(b) complaint was also dismissed.