Paula Frances Armstrong

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The parties disagreed on the respondent's income, as he operated an automotive business and co-mingled personal and business expenses.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $110,876.00 based on a credit application and ordered temporary child support of $1,549.00 per month and spousal support of $1,108.00 per month.

The court declined to make the order retroactive as the respondent had been covering many family expenses since separation.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s father and step‑mother brought a motion seeking an order placing the child in their care and custody.

The court treated the motion as a temporary care and custody hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act because no prior temporary care and custody hearing had been held.

Although the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm, the court found that the risk could be adequately addressed through a supervision order while the child remained with the mother and step‑father.

The court emphasized continuity of care, the stage of the proceedings, and the society’s position that supervision was appropriate.

The motion seeking placement with the father and step‑mother was dismissed.

The moving party mother brought a motion for increased, overnight access to her daughter and for interim spousal support.

The responding party father opposed overnight access, citing concerns about the mother's Huntington's Disease and depression, and argued income should be imputed to her as she was intentionally unemployed.

The court granted the mother supervised overnight access, finding no evidence of risk to the child.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, finding she was not intentionally unemployed given her pending disability appeals, and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support of $601 per month.

A biological father brought a motion to set aside a Crown wardship order made without notice to him in child protection proceedings.

The court considered whether a biological father who did not meet the statutory definition of “parent” under the Child and Family Services Act was nevertheless entitled to notice of the Crown wardship application.

The court held that the father had a common-law entitlement to notice and that the society had failed to take reasonable steps to identify and notify him before obtaining the order.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada authority concerning procedural fairness in child protection matters, the court concluded that the wardship order was a nullity as against the father.

The order was set aside as against him only, while the child remained temporarily in the society’s care pending further proceedings.

The appellants, estate trustees for the deceased aunt of a party to a family law action, appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a family law trial judgment.

The trial judgment had awarded the respondent a one-half interest in a property previously held in joint tenancy by her ex-husband and the deceased aunt.

The aunt died before trial, and her interest passed to the ex-husband by right of survivorship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the estate trustees failed to move in a timely manner, having waited until after the ex-husband's appeal was dismissed before asserting the estate's rights.

Furthermore, the estate's claim lacked potential merit as the deceased had never taken steps to sever the joint tenancy during her lifetime.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent a 50% interest in a farm property based on resulting trust principles and ordering a lump sum child support payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the property division, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust principles or rejection of the appellant's 'unclean hands' argument.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge erred by ordering a lump sum payment without sufficient evidence to calculate the amount under the Child Support Guidelines, including assumptions about post-secondary education.

The Court substituted an order for ongoing periodic child support of $345 per month and ordered $40,000 from the appellant's share of the farm sale proceeds to be paid into court or the Family Responsibility Office as security.