Peter D. Eberlie

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings and refusals from oral questioning in a family law proceeding.

The requested disclosure primarily related to the respondent's severance package from a former employer, significant loans received from a friend, consulting invoices, bank and credit card statements, and documents regarding the purchase of a farm property.

The court granted almost all of the applicant's requests, finding the financial information relevant to the applicant's claims for spousal support and potential imputation of income.

The respondent husband brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The applicant wife opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion requiring the respondent to pay the upfront costs of an updated joint expert income report.

The court dismissed the motion to sever, finding the respondent failed to prove the applicant would not be prejudiced regarding health benefits and noting the respondent's failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court granted the applicant's cross-motion, ordering the respondent to fund the expert report upfront, subject to equalization.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's counsel failing to follow court directions regarding written submissions.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting, child support, and spousal support.

The parties agreed on an equal parenting schedule based on a Voice of the Child report.

The primary issue was whether to impute income to the applicant, who had been a stay-at-home parent for many years but had not sought employment since separation.

Applying the principles from Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the applicant was intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 based on a vocational assessment report.

The moving party (mother) brought an ex parte motion seeking sole custody and supervised access, alleging the responding party (father) attempted to abduct their child to the United States.

The court found no exigent circumstances justified the ex parte motion and that the moving party egregiously failed in her duty to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The responding party's attempts to cross the border without proper documentation showed bad judgment but did not constitute abduction.

The moving party's motion was dismissed on its merits, and the court imposed procedural constraints to manage the high-conflict litigation, including requiring leave for future motions.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his two adult children and erase arrears.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change, fix arrears, and order ongoing support.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him.

The court ordered support for one child to terminate after she completed her undergraduate degree, but found the other child, who is permanently disabled, remains a child of the marriage indefinitely.

The father was ordered to pay significant arrears and ongoing support.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an interlocutory motion for production of CAS records after a final order had been issued in a high-conflict custody case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no underlying proceeding to ground it.

In a related garnishment hearing, the father had garnished the mother's bank account to collect costs.

The mother argued this effectively garnished child support and Canada Child Benefit funds.

The court set aside the garnishment to the extent of those funds, finding it inequitable to allow garnishment of monies meant for the child's benefit.

The moving party (the respondent in the family proceeding) brought a motion to sever the divorce from the corollary issues under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that child support arrangements were not reasonable and that she would lose extended health benefits.

The court granted the severance, finding that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made and that the loss of health benefits did not amount to significant prejudice.

The applicant sought a determination of the respondent's income for child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a sole shareholder of two corporations, claimed an income of $34,000 while declaring expenses of $86,000.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure unreliable and that he was underreporting his income by charging personal expenses to his corporations.

Relying on sections 19, 22, and 23 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed the respondent's annual income at $86,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on the imputed income and $5,641 in net arrears for child support, section 7 expenses, and erroneously claimed child tax benefits.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found the parents were engaged in a high-conflict relationship and were unable to communicate or cooperate, making joint custody impossible.

However, the court also found that granting sole custody to the mother would likely lead to further conflict and marginalize the father.

The court ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with a week-about schedule, dividing decision-making responsibilities.

The court also imputed income of $150,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding he was intentionally under-employed, and declined to order the mother to pay child support despite the shared custody arrangement due to the significant income disparity.

The father's claims for occupation rent, vehicle lease reimbursement, and property equalization were dismissed.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the applicant brought a motion seeking permission to travel with the parties’ young child to Florida after the respondent refused to consent.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking a restraining order against the applicant and his parents.

The court considered the child’s best interests and prior judicial comments emphasizing the need to avoid depriving the child of beneficial experiences due to parental conflict.

The court held that the proposed travel would advance the child’s interests and dispensed with the respondent’s consent requirement.

The respondent’s request for a restraining order was dismissed due to lack of credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds for fear.