Shadrach R. McCooeye

The father brought a motion to change final orders regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

He sought decision-making authority, primary residence, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The mother opposed the changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a complete breakdown in communication between the parents, but determined it was in the children's best interests for the mother to retain decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court ordered the parties to use OurFamilyWizard for all communication.

The court adjusted ongoing child support based on the father's current income but declined to order a retroactive reduction for previous years due to his delay in seeking relief.

The parties were also ordered to proportionately share extraordinary extracurricular expenses.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to strike affidavit evidence filed by the Children's Aid Society on a summary judgment motion.

The father argued that under recent appellate jurisprudence, the court was required to automatically vet and excise non-trial-worthy evidence before responding parties filed their materials.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the responsibility remains on the parties to file trial-worthy evidence and to raise specific objections via a motion to strike, rather than imposing an automatic initial vetting process on the court.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law application.

The court considered the applicant's success and her genuine attempts to resolve the matter through an offer to settle.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $5,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith by the respondent.