Stephanie Simard

The parties separated and the applicant father withheld the child from the respondent mother, citing concerns about her mental health.

The father sought an order restricting the mother to supervised access.

The mother provided medical evidence showing she was actively engaged in treatment for depression and anxiety and that her condition had significantly improved.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to be in an equal timesharing arrangement on a temporary basis, noting the mother's positive steps in addressing her mental health and her historical role as a primary caregiver.

The bankrupt brought a motion under s. 178(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking an order that student loan debt be released from the statutory non-dischargeability provisions in bankruptcy.

The court considered whether the applicant had acted in good faith regarding the student loan obligations and whether the applicant had and would continue to experience financial hardship preventing repayment.

The evidence showed little effort to repay the loans and demonstrated ongoing employment and earning capacity.

The court found the applicant failed to establish both good faith efforts and continuing financial inability to repay.

The motion to discharge the student loan debt was dismissed.

Following a successful motion enforcing the terms of a separation agreement, the moving party sought full recovery of legal fees and disbursements.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and allegations that the responding party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by refusing to comply with the agreement, ignoring disclosure orders, avoiding service, and failing to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.

The responding party did not provide submissions on costs despite being granted an extension.

The court found the conduct abusive and indicative of bad faith.

Full recovery costs of $8,570.49, including HST, were ordered payable immediately.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce the terms of a separation agreement after the respondent failed to comply with its obligations, including transferring his interest in the matrimonial home and paying child support and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent also sought an adjournment, which was refused due to prior notice and repeated non‑compliance with earlier court disclosure orders.

The court found the separation agreement constituted a valid family contract under the Family Law Act and had been negotiated with sufficient financial disclosure and opportunity for independent legal advice.

Applying s. 55 of the Family Law Act and Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered the agreement enforced and made additional orders concerning custody, access, enforcement by police if necessary, and payment of child support arrears and expenses.