Nida Hussain

The parties separated after an 8.5-year marriage and resolved most issues, leaving only decision-making responsibility for their two children's health and education to be determined at trial.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought joint decision-making, alternatively with a requirement to use a parenting coordinator with arbitration powers.

The court reviewed the extensive history of parental conflict, allegations of family violence, and the parties' difficulties in addressing one child's reading delays and the other's ADHD diagnosis.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to order parties to participate in the non-binding aspects of parenting coordination, but could not mandate binding arbitration without consent.

The court ordered a detailed framework requiring the parties to attempt to make health and education decisions jointly, including using a mediator or parenting coordinator if they reach an impasse.

However, if consensus still cannot be reached, the mother was granted final decision-making authority.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order that the applicant husband provide a completed FSCO Application for Family Law Value for his pension.

The husband resisted the motion on the basis that the wife's claim for equalization was statute-barred and she must first obtain an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pension valuation was not necessary to determine the threshold issue of whether there were 'apparent grounds for relief' for the extension of time, and that ordering disclosure before the limitation issue was decided would run counter to the purpose of the statute.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions regarding interim parenting of their two young children.

The mother sought primary residence with alternate weekend access for the father, while the father sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the younger child to eventually synchronize with the older child's schedule, emphasizing the need to accommodate the mother's return to work and the children's best interests.

The court also ordered the father to discharge a property encumbrance as previously agreed.

The applicant sought spousal support following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The applicant had immigrated to Canada from Mexico, was sponsored by the respondent, and they married in 2012.

After the applicant's refugee claim was denied, she returned to Mexico and waited approximately 3.5 years for her sponsorship to be processed.

Upon her return to Canada in 2015, the parties cohabited for nine months before separating.

The applicant sought $1,500 per month for three years, citing the respondent's sponsorship undertaking and her need for retraining.

The respondent argued the applicant was not entitled to support and should be self-sufficient.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both a non-compensatory needs basis and a contractual basis arising from the sponsorship agreement.

The court awarded $1,000 per month for 18 months (December 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020), declining to impute income to the applicant and declining to award retroactive support due to the potential social assistance debt repayment obligation.

Following a family law motion in which the applicant obtained financial disclosure orders, interim spousal support, and defeated the respondent’s request to vary child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the proportionality of the legal fees claimed.

Although the applicant was substantially successful and had made an offer to settle that was equalled or exceeded by the court’s prior endorsement, the court found the time spent preparing the motion excessive for the relatively uncomplicated issues.

Costs were therefore reduced from the amount claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay a lump sum costs award to the applicant.

On a family law motion concerning the matrimonial home, the respondent sought an order for immediate partition and sale, while the applicant sought exclusive possession and a delay in listing the property until the end of the school year for the parties’ children.

The court accepted that exclusive possession would remain with the applicant pending sale but found insufficient evidence that selling the home during the school year would cause harm beyond ordinary disruption.

Both parties faced financial pressures and neither could buy out the other’s interest in the property.

Balancing the financial realities and the limited evidence regarding impact on the children, the court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale immediately.