Stephane Perreault

The mother was previously found in contempt of court for breaching parenting orders and alienating the child from the father.

At the penalty hearing, the court found the mother had not purged her contempt and continued to act unilaterally.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence or impose a jail sentence, finding a motion to change was the appropriate vehicle for custody issues.

Instead, the court ordered the mother to pay a $2,000 fine, reimburse the father $4,725 for reunification counselling, complete a high-conflict parenting course, and pay full indemnity costs of $16,314.38.

Following a trial regarding decision-making responsibility for the parties' son, the successful applicant sought costs of $17,280.98.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the respondent's failure to attend a previous settlement conference and his insistence on a trial despite having no realistic chance of success.

However, the court also recognized that the respondent had consented to other parenting terms, narrowing the issues.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' common law relationship.

The applicant is the primary caregiver to their young child and has a significantly lower income than the respondent, whose income was impacted by the pandemic.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,821 per month, finding this mid-range amount fair based on the parties' current estimated incomes.

The Respondent brought a motion for contempt against the Applicant for alleged breaches of parenting time, communication, joint decision-making, and financial disclosure orders.

The court found the Applicant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for wilfully breaching the parenting time and communication terms of previous orders, specifically regarding the child's access to the Respondent.

The court found the Applicant had not genuinely encouraged the child's relationship with the father and had abdicated parental authority.

The finding of contempt was limited to parenting time breaches, with other alleged breaches serving as notice for future compliance.

Sanctions were deferred to a subsequent appearance, with encouragement for parenting time to resume.

The applicant sought an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of a property held as tenants in common.

The respondent, who was also the estate trustee of the deceased co-owner, sought an unequal division based on a claim of unjust enrichment, arguing her efforts increased the property's value after the co-owner's death.

The court dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim, finding she failed to establish a corresponding deprivation or the absence of a juristic reason for her contributions, which were deemed negligible in relation to the property's value increase.

The court ordered an equal division of the remaining net proceeds.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for alleged breaches of two temporary orders concerning financial disclosure, payment of home utilities and costs (including mortgage and property taxes), and reinstatement of property insurance.

The court reviewed the allegations against the high standard for contempt, which requires clear and unequivocal orders, deliberate and willful disobedience, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the alleged breaches, noting ambiguities in the orders, the applicant's own non-compliance with financial disclosure rules, and the respondent's efforts to comply.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, and the respondent was given further orders regarding property taxes.

A child protection proceeding concerning a temporary care and custody order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been apprehended following concerns about exposure to ongoing high-conflict family dynamics, violence between adults, and allegations of sexual misconduct within the family.

Multiple relatives sought custody or supervision arrangements, while the children's aid society sought continued custody with discretionary access.

The court found credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer emotional harm if returned to the prior family environment.

Concluding that supervision conditions would not adequately protect the child given the intensity of conflict and credibility concerns, the court ordered that temporary care and custody remain with the society.