Ryan G. Gillissie

A mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and related orders against the father of her child.

The father opposed the motion, arguing that he should not be legally obligated to pay child support because the mother engaged in a "premeditated theft of the father's DNA" during a "hostile sexual act of DNA theft." The father also sought a restraining order against the mother for alleged stalking.

The court dismissed the father's defence to child support as having no legal basis, imputed income to the father based on his intentional underemployment, and dismissed the restraining order application.

The court granted the mother's motion on all substantive issues.

A child protection society brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been found in need of protection due to parental substance abuse.

The society sought an order placing the child in the sole custody of the father, with access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought joint or parallel parenting arrangements, arguing she should participate in major decisions regarding the child's education and religious upbringing.

The court granted summary judgment to the society, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on the question of sole custody to the father.

The court found the father had provided stable, appropriate care, while the mother's recovery was recent and there was no history of effective co-parenting or communication between the parties.

Following the breakdown of a long-term common law relationship involving two children, the applicant sought child support, spousal support, and compensation for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The respondent argued the parties had separated in 1997 pursuant to a separation agreement, while the applicant asserted the relationship continued until 2011.

The court found the parties remained in a common law relationship until June 21, 2011, and determined that the applicant had established unjust enrichment arising from her domestic and caregiving contributions that enabled the respondent’s financial advancement.

Applying the joint family venture framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the court concluded the respondent retained a disproportionate share of assets accumulated during the relationship.

The applicant was awarded a monetary remedy of $125,000 and ongoing spousal support calculated under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.