Philip A. Burger

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for parenting time of the parties' two young children.

The respondent father opposed the urgency and proposed an alternative parenting schedule.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children were safe with the father and the mother had not initiated a formal family law application.

Considering the children's best interests, including stability, history of care, and parental cooperation, the court adopted a modified version of the father's proposed schedule, granting the mother parenting time from Sunday evening to Thursday morning, and the father from Thursday morning to Sunday evening, to maintain continuity of care and equitable time.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion regarding the sale of matrimonial property.

The applicant was the successful party, having dismissed the respondent's motion and secured an order for the transfer of the Gallagher Road property to her for $275,000.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs, including full recovery costs after her offer to settle was served, as the result achieved was the same as her offer.

The court fixed the all-inclusive costs at $4,500, to be deducted from the respondent's share of the property proceeds.

Robert Shouldice moved for orders granting him sole authority to list and sell two properties, the matrimonial home at McCordick Road and another property at Gallagher Road, seeking to enforce a 2016 order.

Lisa Shouldice opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion, requesting the Gallagher Road property be transferred to her for $275,000 or, alternatively, that she have sole authority to sell it.

The court dismissed Robert Shouldice's motion in its entirety.

For the McCordick Road property, the court noted that a vesting order application was already underway as per a 2019 consent order, which superseded the 2016 order's disposition mechanism.

For the Gallagher Road property, the court granted Lisa Shouldice's cross-motion, ordering the property transferred to her for $275,000, finding this would maximize recovery for creditors and avoid further delays given the parties' history of non-cooperation.

At a family law case conference, the court reviewed the litigation history and the respondent's Answer, which improperly sought to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous trial.

The court struck the respondent's Answer for being deficient and ordered him to file a new, properly pleaded Answer within 30 days.

To promote the primary objective of the Family Law Rules, the court also issued procedural directions for a one-day focused hearing based on affidavit evidence and cross-examination, and ordered the respondent to pay $350 in costs for the case conference.

The trial addressed financial issues following separation, including retroactive child support, special expenses, spousal support, equalization of net family property, breach of contract regarding Canada Child Tax Benefits, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent liable for significant retroactive child support and special expenses, and ordered repayment of tax benefits.

While the applicant was entitled to compensatory spousal support, the respondent's ability to pay was limited by ongoing child support obligations.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, with specific directions for cooperation, and fixed the applicant's interest based on the date of separation value, denying occupational rent.