Sheila R. Gibb

The respondent father brought a motion to continue an order suspending the applicant mother's access to the children and restraining her from communicating with them.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a prolonged campaign of emotional abuse, manipulation, and denigration of the father, which had destabilized the children.

Since the suspension of access, the children had thrived in the father's care.

The court held that it was in the children's best interests to continue the access suspension and restraining orders, with a provision for limited, supervised communication in the future.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to vary access provisions to allow her to relocate with the child to Kelowna, B.C., citing dire financial straits and employment opportunities.

The respondent father had also brought motions for joint custody, a shared parenting schedule, and a child assessment.

The court granted the mother's request for temporary relocation, finding it to be in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's limited recent involvement and the impending trial.

The father's motions for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule were adjourned, and his other requests were dismissed.

In a family law proceeding involving custody and access issues, the applicant sought a restraining order preventing the respondent from publishing or disseminating private intimate information about her on the internet.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Family Law Act to issue such an order where threats of online disclosure created psychological and emotional fear.

The court held that reasonable grounds to fear for safety can include psychological safety and that threats to publicly disseminate intimate information could justify a restraining order.

The court further held that s. 46(3) permits broader terms where appropriate, including restrictions on online publication.

A restraining order was granted pending further court order to preserve a reasonable atmosphere for litigation and protect the parties and child.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a consent order resolving parenting issues, the court addressed costs arising from competing motions and an adjournment.

The moving party had short‑served extensive motion materials seeking contempt findings, parenting changes, and financial relief.

The responding party argued that the motion was unnecessary and that the eventual parenting arrangement largely reflected the responding party’s earlier offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found the responding party to be the more successful party and concluded the motion could have been avoided through proper scheduling and conference procedures.

The court ordered costs in favour of the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary spousal support following separation.

The court implemented a temporary “week about nesting arrangement” to maximize the children’s contact with each parent pending development of a parenting plan.

Applying s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court found the applicant had at least a non‑compensatory entitlement to spousal support, leaving any compensatory claim to trial due to conflicting evidence regarding caregiving roles during the marriage.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she had made reasonable efforts to obtain employment.

Temporary spousal support was ordered together with interim financial obligations and life insurance security.