Novalea M. Jarvis

The parties separated after the respondent mother left the family home with the children to a women's shelter, alleging the applicant father was abusive and a threat due to his rigid religious beliefs.

Following an 18-day trial, the court rejected the mother's allegations of abuse and neglect, finding the father to be a competent and involved parent.

The court declined to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which had suggested sole custody for the mother and restricted access for the father.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly schedule.

Due to the parties' inability to communicate, the court ordered parallel decision-making, granting the father authority over medical decisions and the mother authority over education.

Finally, the court imputed income to the underemployed father based on his historical earnings as a counsellor for the purpose of calculating child support.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for allegedly breaching a consent access order relating to the parties’ children.

Although affidavit evidence conflicted on most alleged breaches, the court found that the respondent had withheld access for approximately two weeks and that her justification for doing so lacked credibility.

Despite concluding that the elements of civil contempt could have been established beyond a reasonable doubt for that incident, the court declined to make a formal contempt finding.

Emphasizing that contempt in family law matters is a remedy of last resort, the court determined that the circumstances did not warrant such a sanction at that time.

The motion was dismissed, though the respondent’s conduct would be considered on the issue of costs.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

The applicant sought a determination that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to address spousal support and net family property following a divorce proceeding commenced in Texas.

The respondent argued that a Texas court had already issued a final divorce order and determined issues relating to spousal support and property rights.

The court held that where a foreign court has granted a valid divorce, Ontario courts lack jurisdiction to determine corollary relief under the Divorce Act and claims under the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Texas court by participating in the proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdiction ruling.

The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act was held not to apply because the foreign order denied spousal support rather than ordering payment.