S. Philbert

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement signed in March 2016 and fix the date of separation as the date of the agreement.

The respondent challenged the validity of the agreement and argued the date of separation was July 31, 2018.

The court set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the applicant failed to disclose significant assets, specifically an impending $4 million investment in his company.

The court also found that the parties' conduct after March 2016, including living together, travelling, and attending therapy, indicated a reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The court fixed the date of separation as July 31, 2018.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following two motions heard on March 30, 2023.

The applicant mother's motion for financial disclosure was largely granted, while the respondent father's motion for extended parenting time and questioning was granted in relatively small part.

The court found the mother to be more successful overall and awarded her costs, taking into account settlement offers from both parties.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $12,000 in costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision on a motion to change a final custody order.

The trial judge had found a material change in circumstances but ordered that the parties continue to have joint custody of the child with a parallel parenting regime, and that the child's primary residence remain with the respondent mother.

The father argued he should have been granted sole custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors of law, her findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and she made no palpable and overriding error in determining that joint custody remained in the child's best interests.

In a final decision following a family law trial, the court determined the ongoing calculation of child support.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent for a period of unemployment.

The court held that a material change in circumstances was not required to adjust support because no final order had been made.

The court declined to impute income, finding the respondent was not intentionally underemployed and had conducted an extensive job search.

Ongoing support was set based on the respondent's new employment income.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision varying overnight access based on a material change in circumstances.

The trial judge found the appellant neglected the child's reading homework and allowed the child to play age-inappropriate video games.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the legal test or assessment of the evidence, noting the appellant did not testify to explain his conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.