Sean Heeley

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal shared parenting and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of her primary care.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Barendregt, noting the 'maximum contact principle' has been replaced by the 'parenting time factor' which is strictly subject to the child's best interests.

Finding the father's request was partly financially motivated and that the status quo favoured the mother, the court ordered the children to remain in the mother's primary care.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and arrears.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 child support order, seeking to impute an income of $50,000 to $65,000 to the respondent father and claiming retroactive section 7 expenses.

The respondent argued his income was limited due to severe, long-standing mental health issues, including ADHD and depression.

The court reviewed the respondent's medical history and employment efforts, finding he was not intentionally under-employed but was managing his health challenges as best he could.

The court imputed only a modest additional $3,500 to his reported income based on actual earnings from odd jobs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses, a life insurance order, and a restraining order, but ordered proportional sharing of future section 7 expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of four court orders regarding his parenting time and an order requiring disclosure of information about the child.

The court found that the mother had willfully disobeyed the parenting time orders by failing to take positive steps to require the 15-year-old child to attend access, instead encouraging the child's estrangement.

The court found the mother in contempt for the parenting time breaches but exercised its discretion not to find her in contempt for failing to disclose the child's babysitting address, reserving the penalty to a subsequent remedies hearing.

Dispute among siblings and co-executors regarding administration of an estate where the primary assets consisted of two real properties specifically gifted under a will and holograph codicil.

Motions for directions were brought amid conflict between executors over whether to sell the properties to satisfy estate debts or allow a beneficiary additional time to fund payment of those obligations.

The court found the administration of the estate had stalled due to a serious breakdown in trust between the executors and beneficiaries.

To preserve the estate and ensure proper administration, both executors were removed and replaced with an independent professional executor.

The newly appointed executor was directed to determine the estate’s debts and expenses and administer the estate accordingly, including potential sale of property if necessary.

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship for four children.

The mother and her current partner sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The father of one of the children sought custody of his daughter.

The court found all four children in need of protection due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and unstable relationships.

The court concluded that the mother and her current partner lacked the insight and ability to safely parent the children.

The father of one child was found to be more suited as an access parent due to his unresolved anger management and substance abuse issues.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all four children, with access granted to the father of one child at the society's discretion, and denied access to the mother and her current partner for the three youngest children.