Sandra Jones

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his access time with his two children, remove the supervision requirement, and secure holiday access.

The applicant mother opposed the holiday access due to COVID-19 concerns related to a visiting family member, and opposed unsupervised access citing the father's lifestyle and past behaviour.

The court held that the mother could not unilaterally cancel scheduled access due to family plans and ordered the holiday visit to proceed.

The court also found insufficient evidence to justify long-term supervised access, ordering a gradual phase-out of supervision over several weeks.

The court determined interim child and spousal support pending trial in a family law proceeding.

The parties’ children resided with the respondent in the matrimonial home while the applicant paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance after separation.

The court held that these payments, exceeding the Child Support Guidelines amount, satisfied the applicant’s interim child support obligation.

The court also ordered interim spousal support of $1,250 per month, imputing income to the respondent based on her skills and education despite claims of disability.

The interim order was intended to remain in effect until trial, subject to variation if the trial did not proceed as scheduled.

Following a motion and cross‑motion in a family law proceeding concerning custody, access, and child support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had been largely successful in opposing a motion to vary an earlier custody order, in resisting attempts to eliminate child support arrears and ongoing support, and in clarifying holiday access.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, complexity, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the self‑represented opposing party.

The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 plus HST and ordered payable as child support.

The father brought a motion to vary a joint custody order that had been in place for over four years.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's erratic behaviour, chronic access issues, and the clear views and preferences of the 17-year-old and 11-year-old children to reside with their father.

The court granted the father sole custody and ordered the mother to pay child support arrears of $3,000 and ongoing child support of $511 per month.

The parties, parents of a four-year-old child, sought final orders regarding custody, access, child support, travel, and the child's name.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother, finding the parents unable to communicate or cooperate.

The father was granted regular access, with pick-ups and drop-offs moved to public locations to reduce conflict.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on imputed income, with payment of arrears suspended until his income improves.

The court also ordered the child's surname be changed to include the father's surname, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction.