Robert Haas

The applicant father and respondent mother, who separated in 2014, both sought sole decision-making responsibility for their two children.

The parties had a history of high conflict and inability to co-parent effectively, despite a 2016 separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The court found that neither sole nor joint decision-making was appropriate, instead ordering divided decision-making: the father was granted final authority over education, dental, and extra-curricular activities, while the mother was granted final authority over medical decisions and school supports.

The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained with minor modifications.

The court also ordered that no child support be payable by either party under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, and dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant general contractor and owner after a dispute over site conditions for waterproofing work.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and failed to provide adequate manpower.

The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the contract and reasonably refused to apply waterproofing in unsuitable, wet conditions.

The court held that the defendant anticipatorily repudiated the contract by issuing an unsubstantiated Notice of Default, seizing the plaintiff's equipment, and hiring a replacement contractor.

The plaintiff was awarded $201,871.74 for outstanding money owed, while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The father brought a contempt motion and a motion to change a final parenting order after the mother withheld his parenting time for an extended period.

The mother withheld the child following two weekends where the child returned with severe diaper rash, leading to a child protection investigation that verified neglect by the father.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the clear terms of the order, she did not act with contumacious intent but out of a legitimate concern for the child.

The court exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than find the mother in contempt.

The father's motion to change the order to add make-up time and a police enforcement clause was dismissed as not being in the child's best interests.

Following motions for interim custody, access, and support, the respondent sought costs of $13,000 against actual legal fees of nearly $25,000.

The applicant argued the costs were outrageous and sought no costs due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the more successful party, but significantly reduced the award due to her unreasonable conduct, including self-help and filing excessively voluminous and irrelevant affidavit material.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs, payable at the final resolution of the proceeding.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children with weekend access to the respondent father, alleging abusive and controlling behaviour.

The respondent father sought a shared parenting arrangement, arguing he had been equally involved in parenting prior to separation.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse unpersuasive and determined that a shared parenting arrangement was in the children's best interests, maintaining the pre-separation status quo.

The court ordered a two-day-on, two-day-off shared custody schedule and calculated child support on an offset basis pursuant to section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant sought removal of the respondent as estate trustee and a passing of accounts relating to an estate that included a disputed cottage property.

The respondent agreed to pass accounts only from the date he became succeeding trustee, arguing the estate had otherwise been fully administered earlier.

The court considered s. 55 of the Trustee Act and the principle that an executor of an executor assumes the obligations of the prior executor where administration remains incomplete.

Because the estate administration was not complete at the time of the prior executor’s death, the respondent was required to account from the date of that death.

The court ordered the respondent to pass accounts covering the period from the prior executor’s death to June 30, 2014.

The parties brought cross-motions for an interim parenting schedule, and the respondent sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence that it was in the children's best interests to remove the applicant from the home, and ordered the home listed for sale.

On the parenting issues, the court ordered interim interim joint custody with primary residence to the respondent and a generous parenting schedule for the applicant, noting the respondent's historical role as the primary caregiver.