Stephane MonPremier

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final order for summer parenting time in British Columbia, which the respondent mother denied due to alleged safety concerns stemming from an incident the previous summer.

The mother brought a cross-motion for supervised access in Ottawa and anger management for the father.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) closed its file without taking a position.

The court found the final order remained in effect and the mother could not unilaterally deny access.

The court was not prepared to restrict access based on uncorroborated hearsay and dismissed the mother's motion, ordering the father's parenting time to proceed as per the final order.

The applicant sought the sale of jointly owned property (a condominium, camping trailer, and boat) and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent sought to set aside the transfer of the condominium into joint ownership, arguing a resulting trust due to a gratuitous transfer for estate planning purposes.

The court found the condominium transfer was gratuitous and the presumption of a resulting trust in favor of the respondent was not rebutted.

Consequently, the condominium title was ordered transferred back to the respondent's sole name.

The applicant's claims for the camping trailer and spousal support were dismissed due to lack of consideration for the trailer and insufficient evidence to support spousal support entitlement.

The appellant appealed a decision reducing her spousal support, arguing the motions judge erred by not directing a trial and by failing to properly account for the compensatory nature of her support.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence of her historical tax returns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings, including the finding that the appellant had cohabited with her new partner prior to marriage, and correctly applied the law regarding material change in circumstances.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to remove the applicant's solicitor and the dismissal of the applicant's cross-motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $6,955.80, citing offers to settle and alleged inflammatory remarks by opposing counsel.

The court found the remarks did not warrant an enhanced award and noted that 'no-cost' offers do not automatically trigger Rule 18 consequences.

Costs were fixed at $4,400, slightly higher than partial indemnity, payable by the applicant to the respondent.