Sylvano A. Carlesso

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage due to the respondent's posttraumatic stress disorder.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, imputed the respondent's income to account for non-taxable benefits, and ordered time-limited spousal support.

The court also ordered the respondent to satisfy the equalization payment via a lump sum transfer from his pension, declining the applicant's request to transfer the matrimonial home as the court lacked authority to redistribute property for that purpose.

Following a lengthy high‑conflict custody and access trial, the court was asked to determine costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The trial resulted in joint decision‑making authority with the child’s primary residence remaining with the respondent and a detailed access regime for the applicant.

Both parties sought significant costs and relied on competing offers to settle under Rule 18(14).

The court held that success at trial was divided: the applicant obtained joint decision‑making authority and significant access, while the respondent secured primary residence and prevented the child from missing school for access.

Given the mixed outcome and findings that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, the presumption of costs to the successful party was displaced.

The defendant First Nation brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment of $1.6 million obtained by the plaintiff for mould remediation work.

The defendant alleged the judgment was obtained by fraud, claiming the work was not done and the former Chief lacked authority to enter into the contract or consent to judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to prove fraud on a balance of probabilities and that the former Chief had ostensible authority to bind the defendant.

The moving party father brought a motion to change existing consent orders that provided for joint custody with primary residence to the responding party mother.

He sought sole custody and changes to the access regime.

The mother responded by seeking sole custody and a reduction in the father's access, citing escalating conflict largely driven by the father and his new wife.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the high level of conflict, rendering joint custody unworkable.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding she was better able to meet the child's needs and that the father often prioritized his own interests over the child's.

A highly structured access schedule was ordered for the father to minimize future conflict.