Stephen R. Lundin

The mother brought a motion seeking compliance with an income disclosure order, sale of a jointly owned duplex, and occupation rent from the father.

The father had delayed financial disclosure and resisted the sale and occupation rent.

The court ordered the sale of the duplex by September 30, 2023, with net proceeds held in trust, finding the father had not met the onus to preclude sale despite potential equalization prejudice and disruption to children.

The claim for occupation rent was deferred to trial due to unknown variables.

The mother was awarded partial indemnity costs of $2500.

This decision addresses cross-motions for temporary parenting time and child support following the separation of parents with two young children.

The court considered the parents' demanding and rotating work schedules, applying the "best interests" test and the "maximum contact" principle.

A biweekly parenting schedule was ordered, primarily structured around the father's night shifts, and the father was directed to pay child support in the amount of $1,193 monthly based on an annual income of $78,800.

This trial decision addresses a custody and access dispute between separated parents, Kathryn Margaret Moyer and Robert William Donald Moyer, concerning their two daughters.

The applicant initially sought sole custody, while the respondent sought joint custody, later amending to sole custody.

The court considered an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, which recommended sole custody to the applicant, but ultimately disagreed with its conclusions, finding the applicant exaggerated behavioral problems and that her parenting style reinforced issues.

The court emphasized the children's well-being in both households, as supported by teacher testimony, and found that despite communication challenges, the parents could make important decisions.

The final order granted joint custody with a shared parenting schedule, transitioning from a four-day on/four-day off rotation to a week on/week off schedule, and included provisions for child support, extraordinary expenses, post-secondary education, and mandatory assessment and therapy at a local mental health center.

The applicant sought joint custody of the child on a week on/week off basis, while the respondent sought primary custody with a specific access schedule.

The court found joint decision-making impracticable due to the parties' inability to communicate.

Considering the child's historical primary caregiver (the respondent) and concerns about the applicant's proposed early morning childcare arrangements, the court granted interim primary custody to the respondent.

The applicant was granted access every second week from Thursday after school/care until Monday morning.

Child support was deferred for later argument.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change brought by the mother seeking to relocate the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The mother's case rested primarily on an employment offer that the court found was not bona fide but rather a strategic move.

The father, as the successful party, sought costs from the date of his offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the father on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer to settle, finding the mother acted unreasonably in pursuing litigation based on a non-genuine employment offer.

The applicant sought to change an existing consent order to relocate with the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought custody of the child.

The court applied the two-part test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court determined that all circumstances relied upon by the applicant were either known and foreseeable at the time of the consent order or did not meet the threshold for material change.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a family law mobility trial where the applicant father was successful in having the children reside primarily with him, he sought costs of $77,664.53 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother, who had limited financial means, argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to apply the strict costs consequences of the offer to settle, noting the difficult nature of mobility cases and the reasonableness of both parties' positions.

Considering the respondent's modest means and the costs she would incur to exercise access, the court fixed costs at $15,000 payable to the applicant.