Peter Dymoke Eberlie

The applicant father brought a motion for interim access to the parties' three children.

The respondent mother sought to restrict access to supervised, daytime-only visits, alleging the father had substance abuse issues and had inappropriately touched one of the children.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the touching allegations or to require supervised access, but concluded that prima facie concerns regarding substance abuse justified a temporary prohibition on overnight access and conditions prohibiting alcohol and drug use prior to and during access.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 19-year marriage.

The court determined issues of equalization, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had hidden assets and imputed income to her due to undisclosed cash from a business.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $139,690.81.

Retrospective child support was offset, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent $1,191.85, while the respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support and spousal support.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to vary access provisions to allow her to relocate with the child to Kelowna, B.C., citing dire financial straits and employment opportunities.

The respondent father had also brought motions for joint custody, a shared parenting schedule, and a child assessment.

The court granted the mother's request for temporary relocation, finding it to be in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's limited recent involvement and the impending trial.

The father's motions for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule were adjourned, and his other requests 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.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant father brought a motion to compel the respondent mother's father and boyfriend to attend for oral questioning as non-parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the strict criteria under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules, as questioning non-parties is a last resort and the information sought was either irrelevant or available from the respondent herself.

The respondent's father was, however, ordered to provide an affidavit regarding specific financial gifts and a vehicle transfer.

Motion to change a child support order for Ashley Taylor Boivin-Smith.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from the respondent stepfather based on his increased income.

The respondent opposed the motion and argued that his support obligations should be terminated or significantly reduced, contending that he had overpaid support and that the biological father should bear primary responsibility.

The court found that the respondent remained a parent for support purposes and that child support should continue.

However, the court rejected the applicant's request for full Guidelines support and instead applied a "top-up" approach under section 5 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, requiring the respondent to pay only the amount necessary to supplement the biological father's presumptive Guidelines obligation.

The court also declined to award retroactive support for years prior to 2007.

In a family law motion, the respondent father sought permission to take the parties’ six‑year‑old child to Cuba for a family wedding.

The mother opposed the trip, alleging concerning behaviour by the father and raising questions about his mental stability and parenting judgment.

The court noted that the serious allegations could not be resolved on conflicting affidavit evidence without cross‑examination.

Applying the best interests of the child and taking a cautious approach in light of unresolved allegations, the court concluded that the child should not travel internationally at that time.

The motion was dismissed, without prejudice to the father seeking reimbursement of the child’s airfare.

The applicant sought to adjourn a family law custody and access trial until after the resolution of related criminal charges, arguing that proceeding with the family trial first would prejudice his criminal defence by requiring disclosure of facts relevant to the allegations.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, asserting that delay would prejudice both her and the parties’ child.

The court considered statutory protections under the Ontario Evidence Act, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect witnesses from self‑incrimination in subsequent proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing adjournments and emphasizing the best interests of the child, the court held that an indefinite delay pending completion of criminal proceedings would not serve the child’s interests.

The request to adjourn the trial pending the criminal trial was therefore dismissed, though other potential adjournment issues were left to the trial management judge.

On competing interim family law motions following separation, the respondent sought implementation of parenting schedule recommendations from a custody and access assessment, while the applicant sought an interim preservation order restraining dealings with certain corporate interests and RRSP assets.

The court considered whether an assessor’s report prepared for trial could be relied upon on an interim motion.

The court held that while caution is required, the contents of an assessment may be considered where it provides probative evidence and where the requested interim order does not substantially alter the status quo.

The parenting schedule was modestly reorganized to accommodate the father’s employment travel and the child’s educational needs, while balancing the child’s expressed preferences and parental care considerations.

An interim preservation order was also granted restraining dealings with specified corporate interests and RRSPs pending valuation to protect potential equalization claims.

On competing interim family law motions following separation, the respondent sought implementation of parenting schedule recommendations from a custody and access assessment, while the applicant sought an interim preservation order restraining dealings with certain corporate interests and RRSP assets.

The court considered whether an assessor’s report prepared for trial could be relied upon on an interim motion.

The court held that while caution is required, the contents of an assessment may be considered where it provides probative evidence and where the requested interim order does not substantially alter the status quo.

The parenting schedule was modestly reorganized to accommodate the father’s employment travel and the child’s educational needs, while balancing the child’s expressed preferences and parental care considerations.

An interim preservation order was also granted restraining dealings with specified corporate interests and RRSPs pending valuation to protect potential equalization claims.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent wife $1,000 per month in spousal support, arguing it constituted impermissible double recovery from his equalized pension.

The wife cross-appealed for increased retroactive support.

The Divisional Court allowed the husband's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by encroaching on the equalized survivor pension to fund support.

The court reduced spousal support to $140 per month, representing half of the unequalized pre-marriage portion of the pension, and dismissed the wife's cross-appeal.

On a family law appeal, the appellant challenged the inclusion of sick leave credits in net family property, the retirement age used for pension valuation, a paragraph of the judgment characterized as a support order triggered by default in payment, and the trial costs order.

The court held that the evidentiary record supported the trial judge’s treatment of the sick leave credits and pension valuation, and that the impugned paragraph was authorized on consent and properly viewed as support rather than conversion of a property order.

The court declined to interfere with the costs ruling, including the application of Rule 49.

The appeal was dismissed subject only to a consent variation reducing the equalization payment.