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.

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.