Paul Ernst Martin Bauerle

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order to reinstate parenting time with her child, which had been suspended since 2020.

The mother struggled with severe substance abuse, mental health issues, and instability, and exhibited inappropriate behaviour during the virtual trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother's current instability posed a risk to the child's safety and well-being, the court dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the suspension of parenting time.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the return of children and re-establishment of their primary residence.

The Respondent opposed, seeking custody with supervised access for the Applicant, citing concerns about the Applicant's alcohol use, mental health, and a domestic violence incident involving her partner.

The court found the facts contested but ordered the children to reside with the parties more or less equally, with the Respondent returning the children to the Applicant forthwith.

A condition was imposed that the Applicant not permit contact between the children and her partner, Mark Korolenchuk.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was invited to participate, and costs were reserved.

Following a trial that determined the parties' date of separation, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that was less favourable than the trial outcome, entitling her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, reducing the claimed disbursements for investigative services but largely accepting the applicant's fee claims.

Costs were fixed globally at $200,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

This trial of an issue concerned the determination of the date of separation for the purpose of property division and spousal support in a divorce application.

The applicant contended a separation date of July 2014, following a significant marital conflict, while the respondent argued for an earlier date in June 2000, when the applicant moved into separate quarters within the matrimonial home.

The court applied the "indicia of separation" framework, considering objective factors such as living arrangements, sexual relations, shared activities, financial contributions, and tax filings.

Despite the parties living under the same roof for an extended period, the court found that the matrimonial consortium was not destroyed until July 2014, when the applicant unequivocally decided to end the marriage by retaining legal counsel.

The court fixed the date of separation as July 31, 2014.

Following a lengthy family law trial primarily concerning parenting arrangements for two children, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found the trial result to be mixed but concluded that the respondent was the successful party because her offer to settle closely approximated the ultimate judgment.

The court held that an amendment to a compliant offer to settle may remain valid for costs purposes even if the amendment does not strictly comply with the formal requirements of Rule 18(4), provided it is clear and unambiguous.

However, both parties engaged in conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the trial, and the respondent advanced a litigation position inconsistent with her willingness to accept joint custody.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis and reduced by 50 percent.

A custody and parenting dispute arose following the separation of the parties, who had two young children.

Both parents sought sole custody, alleging significant interpersonal conflict, manipulative behaviour, and communication difficulties.

The court found both parents capable and loving caregivers but determined that their conflictual relationship made a sole custody order inappropriate.

Applying best‑interests principles under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act, and guidance from appellate authority regarding joint custody, the court concluded that joint custody was appropriate to preserve both parental relationships while maintaining stability for the children.

The children’s primary residence was ordered to remain with the respondent, with structured parenting time for the applicant.

Financial claims were largely deferred pending a full property trial, while the existing temporary child support order remained in place.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that its defence was not valid against the respondent's claim under a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the doctrine of equitable set-off does not apply to claims under bills of exchange or promissory notes.

The court also found that a stay under Rule 20.08 was unavailable because the appellant's other action was against a different party.

The appeal was dismissed.