Rebecca Coyne

This is a complex family law case involving a dispute over parenting arrangements between separated parents.

The applicant sought an order to temporarily remove the children from the respondent's primary care due to her alleged failure to meaningfully participate in court-ordered reunification therapy.

The case evolved over seven years from a simple application to confirm parenting time into a comprehensive examination of parental alienation, estrangement, and the children's resistance to contact with their father.

The court found that the respondent engaged in systematic alienating conduct that prevented the development of a meaningful father-child relationship, but ultimately declined to reverse custody due to the children's ages and entrenched positions.

The applicant, a grandmother (L.H.), sought an interim contact order with her twin two-year-old granddaughters against her daughter (C.B.) and the children's father (J.L., who did not participate).

The relationship between L.H. and C.B. was strained, with C.B. and the children having resided with L.H. for a year before C.B. moved to a domestic violence shelter due to a toxic environment and conflict with L.H. The court applied the Giansante test for grandparent contact, finding that a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship existed and was imperilled by C.B.'s decision to terminate contact.

However, the court found that C.B. did not act arbitrarily in terminating contact, given the long-standing conflict and L.H.'s belittling comments towards C.B., which created a toxic environment for the children.

The motion for a contact order was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Italy for a 10-month school year to advance her career.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion for interim decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework from the Divorce Act and Barendregt v Grebliunas, found the mother's relocation plan reasonable and in the children's best interests, considering her career advancement, the temporary nature of the move, and her detailed plan for maintaining the father's parenting time.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and the mother was granted permission to obtain passports for the children without the father's consent.

Travel costs were apportioned 75% to the mother and 25% to the father.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the respondent mother was non-compliant with an interim consent order regarding family reconciliation therapy and requested a financial penalty.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the order was frustrated and seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the respondent mother non-compliant, rejecting her reliance on the Health Care Consent Act and her claims of therapist bias or children's refusal.

The court emphasized the mother's chronic delays, lack of prioritization of parenting time and therapy, and failure to exercise parental authority.

The court ordered the respondent mother to pay a $1,500 penalty and immediately comply with the therapy order, and dismissed her request for OCL involvement, noting the children's advanced age and the closing window for reconciliation.

This family law trial concerned the equalization of net family property after the parties had resolved child and spousal support.

The remaining issues were the respondent's claimed date of marriage deduction for a property (the Ailsa property) and whether a $6,000 settlement received by the applicant should be included in her net family property.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a date of marriage deduction, finding he failed to discharge his onus of proof with reliable evidence regarding beneficial ownership or value.

The court also found that the applicant's settlement funds were used to repay a loan from her parents and should not be included as an asset.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant an equalization payment of $41,711.99, with a portion to be paid from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court adjudicated a dispute between separated parents regarding their child E.'s school placement for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant father advocated for a public school, emphasizing public oversight, resources, and community ties.

The respondent mother preferred a private faith-based school, prioritizing spiritual development and individualized attention.

Applying the "best interests of the child" test, the court considered factors such as the child's needs, stability, cultural heritage, school resources, and financial implications.

The court found no compelling reason for the child to attend a private school that could not be met by a public school, noting the public school's greater stability, resources, and the financial uncertainty of private tuition.

The court ordered the child to attend the public school and awarded the applicant reduced costs, emphasizing proportionality and the respondent's ability to pay.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking orders for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, compliance with previous disclosure and payment orders, enforcement of parenting time, and a police-assist order.

The applicant mother opposed the sale and sought an adjournment.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding the matrimonial home's financing unsustainable due to the applicant's non-compliance with payment orders.

The court ordered the sale of the home, directed the applicant to account for and reverse unauthorized renovations, and issued compliance orders for financial disclosure and parenting time, including make-up time for the respondent.

The respondent was deemed entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.