Raymond A. Goddard

In a highly acrimonious family law dispute, the court held a focused hearing to address the respondent father's claim to set aside several temporary separation agreements and arbitration awards, and the applicant mother's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding no evidence of duress, unconscionability, or unfairness in the negotiation of the agreements or the arbitration process.

Conversely, the court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings, finding that he willfully breached multiple disclosure orders and engaged in egregious litigation conduct, including dissipating assets to render himself judgment-proof.

The respondent was granted 60 days to fully comply with the disclosure orders before the matter could proceed as an uncontested trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking the appointment of an assessor under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act to assess the needs of the children and the parents' ability to meet those needs.

She argued the father's behaviour was escalating and cited inappropriate communications.

The father opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary, intrusive, and sought for control.

The court applied the criteria from Glick v. Cale and found that the mother failed to demonstrate that an assessment was reasonably necessary, noting the parents had previously made major decisions without court intervention and the children were not exhibiting issues requiring expert evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement that included a spousal support waiver, claiming duress, lack of disclosure, and lack of independent legal advice under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, as well as unconscionability under s. 33(4).

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the s. 56(4) claims as there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the negotiation of the agreement.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the agreement was voided by a subsequent reconciliation and whether the spousal support waiver resulted in unconscionable circumstances, given the applicant was now living in a shelter and receiving public assistance.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $1,800 per month pending trial.

The applicant father obtained an ex parte order for custody and the return of the children after the respondent mother moved with them to New Brunswick without his consent.

The mother brought a motion to set aside the ex parte order and for permission to relocate to New Brunswick on an interim basis.

The court set aside the ex parte order due to the father's failure to disclose material facts, specifically emails indicating the mother's intended moving date and location.

However, the court dismissed the mother's motion to relocate, finding that custody was not a foregone conclusion and a move prior to trial was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered temporary shared custody with the parents rotating in and out of the matrimonial home.