Roselyn T. Pecus

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between H.S. (mother) and D.N. (father) involving two children.

The court considers whether to implement the recommendations of a section 30 assessment report pending trial, including supervised parenting time for the father and decision-making authority for the mother.

The court finds compelling circumstances to intervene prior to trial, citing ongoing parental conflict, emotional harm to the children, non-compliance with court orders, and gaps in evidence caused by the father's lack of cooperation.

The court orders supervised parenting time for the father, grants the mother decision-making authority, and sets out steps to address outstanding assessment and disclosure issues to ensure trial readiness.

The applicant father sought joint custody and increased access to his daughter, G., who had never had an overnight visit in six years.

The respondent mother opposed, alleging sexual abuse by the father and seeking sole custody and supervised access.

The court conducted a 14-day trial, finding the mother's allegations of sexual abuse to be false and her evidence unreliable.

The court characterized the mother's actions as extreme gatekeeping, driven by a desire to control access and marginalize the father.

The court granted joint custody, with primary residence remaining with the mother, and established a detailed, stepped-up parenting schedule for the father.

Child support was also determined, with the father's income imputed and arrears fixed.

The parties sought a determination of their date of separation.

The applicant wife claimed the date was April 11, 2011, when she retained counsel, while the respondent husband claimed it was May 28, 2008, following a physical altercation.

The parties continued to live under the same roof, file joint tax returns, and maintain joint finances until 2011.

The court found that the husband's proposed date was not supported by the evidence, as neither party acted as though the marriage had ended or made plans as separated persons.

The court accepted the wife's proposed date of April 11, 2011, as the correct date of separation.

Following a family law motion involving an emergency without-notice request for a restraining order and supervised access, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The initial emergency order had been set aside after the court determined there was no urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules and restored the prior shared parenting arrangement.

The father, who was wholly successful on the motion, sought full recovery of his legal costs and alleged bad faith by the mother.

The court declined to find bad faith but concluded the mother acted unreasonably by bringing a without-notice motion in circumstances lacking urgency.

Balancing indemnification, deterrence of unreasonable litigation conduct, and the potential impact on the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant mother brought an ex-parte emergency motion seeking sole custody of the parties' two daughters and termination of the respondent father's access, alleging volatile behaviour and substance abuse.

The court initially granted a temporary restraining order.

On the return of the motion, the father provided responding materials denying the allegations and explaining the context of the incidents.

The court found the father's evidence equally credible to the mother's, noted the mother's pre-emptive actions, and concluded there was no basis to terminate access or vary custody prior to a full hearing and CAS investigation.

The temporary order was terminated, and the shared parenting schedule under the separation agreement was reinstated.