Paul Fitzgerald

The applicant father sought increased parenting time with his two children after their return to Ottawa from a four-year posting in Miami with the respondent mother.

The mother opposed a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement, citing the children's reluctance due to the father's home distance from school and unfamiliarity with a school routine there.

The court, applying the best interests of the child factors under the Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to have increased parenting time with the father.

A temporary order was made for the father's parenting time to be from Wednesday after school to Sunday evening every alternate week, with a view towards a future shared parenting schedule.

The father was deemed the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

The father brought a motion for an interim order to reinstate parenting time with his 11-year-old daughter, claiming the mother had alienated the child and unilaterally withheld access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the father's aggressive conduct and failure to abide by previous orders necessitated supervised reunification counselling.

The court found that the father was largely responsible for the breakdown in the relationship and his lack of parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he successfully engages in reunification counselling with a new counsellor at his own expense.

Following a successful motion regarding parenting arrangements, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $12,604.02.

The respondent father argued for a reduced award of $5,000, citing divided success and an all-encompassing offer to settle that was impossible to accept.

The court found the mother was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

While her offer to settle did not trigger Rule 18(14) consequences because it required acceptance in full, her success on the parenting schedule warranted a slight increase from standard partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $9,450.00.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement, the court addressed a factual inaccuracy raised by the respondent father regarding a refused access visit.

The court clarified that while the applicant mother did refuse the access, she did so because the father was agitated, and maintained its conclusion that the father was less inclined to encourage regular access.

The court also ordered the father to vacate the matrimonial home within 14 days and amended the parenting exchange schedule to align with school hours to minimize conflict.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking primary care of the parties' two children, specific parenting time for the respondent father, and to purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home.

The parties had been living together in the matrimonial home post-separation, resulting in significant conflict.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father's aggressive conduct in front of the children was concerning.

The court granted the mother primary care and final decision-making authority, established a parenting schedule for the father, and ordered that the mother purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home within 90 days.

The applicant sought an order for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, which she owned prior to the marriage.

The respondent, who resided in the home with his two children from a previous relationship, opposed the motion and brought a late cross-motion for spousal support.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, finding the home environment to be psychologically abusive and noting the respondent had the financial means to secure alternate accommodation.

The respondent's motion for spousal support was adjourned due to late service, and he was ordered to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

This was an uncontested trial where the Applicant sought equalization of Net Family Property (NFP), an unequal division of NFP, child support, spousal support, and a property transfer.

The Respondent was noted in default.

The court declined to make an equalization payment due to insufficient information but ordered an unequal division of NFP, finding the Respondent had recklessly depleted family assets.

Lump sum child and spousal support were awarded, secured by the transfer of the Respondent's interest in the matrimonial home and a rental property to the Applicant.

Divorce was granted.

The paternal grandparents brought a motion for access to their six-year-old grandson.

The child's mother, who had primary care, opposed the motion, citing historical conflict, the grandparents' previous refusal to return the child, and inappropriate behaviour.

The grandparents alleged the mother provided inadequate care, but the Children's Aid Society confirmed the mother provided a safe and stable home.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court deferred to the mother's decision, finding her actions were not arbitrary and that extending access would introduce unnecessary conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant husband sought costs following his successful motion to reduce temporary child and spousal support and his successful defense against the respondent wife's cross-motions for increased support, arrears, and interim disbursements.

The court found the husband was the successful party overall, as he achieved a reduction in support based on an income level he proposed, while the wife's requests for extensive disclosure and imputed income were largely denied.

The court awarded the husband $7,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, payable from the wife's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis following her successful opposition to the respondent father's motion to relocate the children to Switzerland.

She argued the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith in the conduct of the litigation.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $5,100 after reducing the time claimed by her counsel for being excessive.

The respondent wife brought a procedural motion seeking financial disclosure, an advance of $50,000 for interim disbursements to hire valuation experts, and an adjournment of the applicant husband's upcoming motion to vary child and spousal support.

The husband brought a cross-motion for disclosure.

The court ordered mutual financial disclosure but denied the wife's request for an adjournment, finding that business valuations were unnecessary for the interim support variation motion.

The request for interim disbursements was deferred to the main motion.

Michael Bielser, the father, brought a motion seeking to enforce a previous consent order (Justice Roger, March 9, 2017, paragraph 7) for the children to return to Switzerland to reside in his primary care.

The mother, Mirjam Bielser, opposed the transfer and sought an order for temporary custody and primary residence of the children in Canada.

The court found that the children's expressed views and preferences regarding their residence were not unequivocal, consistent, or independent, and noted concerns about potential parental lobbying.

The court declined to enforce the order on an interim basis, stating that the complex issues of custody and the children's country of residence should be determined at trial with a full record.

The primary residence of the children was ordered to remain with the mother in Canada pending further agreement or court order.

The applicant, a former step-parent, brought a contempt motion alleging the biological father failed to comply with a temporary access order granting the applicant access to his former step‑children.

The court reviewed multiple missed or rescheduled visits and the parties’ communications following the order.

Applying the three‑part contempt test, the court held the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the father deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order.

The court emphasized that contempt in family proceedings is a remedy of last resort and found the applicant should have pursued enforcement or case conference remedies instead.

The contempt motion was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and claimed retroactive and prospective spousal support under the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act.

She alleged the respondent failed to disclose material assets, the support was inadequate, and she was vulnerable when signing.

The court found the agreement was negotiated with independent legal advice, full financial disclosure was made, and there was no unconscionability or duress.

Applying the Miglin analysis, the court held the agreement met the objectives of the Divorce Act and the applicant failed to demonstrate an entitlement to further support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully opposing the respondent's motion regarding a jointly retained expert.

The applicant had made three offers to settle the motion, which the respondent rejected.

The court declined to evaluate the fairness of the proposed terms for a joint retainer, noting that such terms must be acceptable to both parties and cannot be imposed by the court.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $16,380.

In a family property motion, the respondent sought an order requiring a jointly retained business valuator to expand his mandate to calculate notional income tax liabilities and provide alternative valuation opinions, and alternatively sought to use another expert retained by the applicant.

The court held that the Family Law Rules concerning expert duties and court-appointed experts did not authorize the court to enlarge a joint retainer without both parties' consent or compel an expert to act in a conflict position.

The court also rejected the argument that the expert-duty provisions altered the traditional role of experts, relying on appellate authority confirming those rules merely restated existing common law duties.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change existing custody and access orders to permit her to relocate with the parties' 7-year-old child from Ottawa to Gander, Newfoundland.

The move was prompted by the unexpected military posting of the mother's new partner.

The court found that the new committed relationship and the unexpected posting constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the mother and relocate to Newfoundland, subject to a modified access schedule that provided the father with extended blocks of parenting time.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking overnight access to his two children until the start of school, relying on interim minutes of settlement.

The father, an admitted alcoholic who recently completed rehabilitation, admitted to consuming alcohol on two recent occasions.

The court denied overnight access to protect the children from potential risk, granting generous daytime access instead, and ordered the father to pay costs of $1,200.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional complaint against Comstock Canada and the Millwrights regarding the assignment of work related to material handling systems.

Prior to the consultation, the Ironworkers and the employer settled, but the Millwrights did not.

The Board ruled that the consultation would proceed because a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions still existed.

The Board determined that the work in dispute included the entire chain of work, from dismantling to installation.

Ultimately, the Board directed that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights, performing all functions interchangeably, and made the order binding on future jobs in Board Area #1.

The applicant trade union referred several grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by assigning certain work to composite crews of millwrights and ironworkers.

The intervener ironworkers' union argued that the grievances were essentially jurisdictional disputes and should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to hear the section 124 referrals but, in accordance with its usual practice, decided to first entertain the jurisdictional dispute complaint filed under section 91 before proceeding with the grievances.