Patrice J. Cormier

This family law motion addressed multiple issues including decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, extracurricular activities, international travel, child support, financial disclosure, and the return of personal property.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a weekly shared parenting schedule, accommodating the mother's medical treatments.

Extracurricular activities were limited to a reasonable number and geographic scope.

The mother's request to travel to Mexico with the children was denied due to safety concerns, but travel within North America was permitted with proper notice.

The father's request for child support was refused pending complete financial disclosure, which he was ordered to provide.

The court also provided directives on official documents and the return of the mother's personal belongings.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2016.

The court heard interim motions, resolving most by consent.

The primary contested issue was the respondent's motion to find the applicant in civil contempt for denying him access to their children, Connor and Austin, contrary to an October 2017 order.

The court found that the applicant deliberately and willfully breached the order by unilaterally suspending access, citing concerns about the children's well-being and Connor's stated refusal to visit.

However, applying the high standard for contempt, the court declined to find her in contempt, giving her the benefit of the doubt due to some objective basis for her concerns and the impending trial.

The court emphasized that a parent cannot unilaterally disregard court orders or abdicate parental responsibility by deferring to a child's wishes regarding access.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify the drafting of a previous order dated February 11, 2016, concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The initial intent was for the applicant to deduct 30% of annual extraordinary expenses from her monthly child support payments.

However, this formula was deemed impractical for the Family Responsibility Office to enforce due to the lack of a stipulated net payable amount.

The court clarified that the applicant's monthly child support payment remains fixed at $900, with arrears set at $4,500 for September 2015 to January 2016.

For extraordinary expenses, the respondent is now ordered to reimburse the applicant 30% of the paid amount within 30 days of receiving receipts, rather than the applicant deducting it from her child support payments.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary orders including child support, spousal support, and permission to communicate with the applicant mother.

The mother brought an informal cross-motion for child support.

The court found that the father met the 40% threshold for shared custody and imputed his income at $40,000 due to insufficient financial disclosure.

The mother was ordered to pay $900 per month in child support, subject to a 30% reduction for extraordinary expenses she paid.

The father's requests for temporary spousal support and direct communication with the mother were dismissed due to the high-conflict nature of the separation.

A family law motion addressed spousal support sought by the applicant and a cross‑motion by the respondent seeking child support and other relief, including claims for retroactive child support and special expenses.

The court had previously issued an endorsement awarding the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support and leaving other financial issues to the trial judge.

After the respondent filed a supplementary affidavit concerning past special expenses before the formal order was issued, the court confirmed it was not functus and reviewed the new material.

The additional affidavit did not change the court’s conclusions and the remaining financial issues were left for determination at trial.

The court approved the draft order with a minor wording variation.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage.

The respondent brought a competing motion seeking temporary child support and other relief relating to the parties’ adult child attending university.

The court found that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine issues of retroactive support or special and extraordinary expenses due to changing circumstances relating to the child.

Considering the length of the marriage and the applicant’s disability income compared to the respondent’s significantly higher employment income, the court ordered interim spousal support of $1,000 per month effective September 1, 2015.

All issues of retroactivity and set-off were reserved to the trial judge.

Following a successful motion in a family law proceeding, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying the presumption under paragraph 24(1) of the Rules, the successful party was entitled to costs.

However, the court considered the responding party’s good faith and modest financial resources, as well as the potential impact of a costs award on the welfare of the child.

Costs were therefore reduced and structured as modest monthly payments.

The Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of child support arrears against the respondent pursuant to prior consent orders governing periodic child support and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the arrears calculation, alleging that certain extraordinary expenses were improperly included, that payments previously made under protest were not credited, and that certain accounting charges were erroneous.

The court interpreted the prior variation order as having established a “clean slate” fixing arrears as of specified dates, thereby incorporating all credits and charges up to that time.

The court accepted the enforcement calculation and determined the respondent remained in arrears.

The respondent was ordered to pay the arrears by a specified date, failing which enforcement by committal could be sought.