Tamara Paulina Scarowsky

This decision concerns the penalty phase of a contempt motion in a high-conflict family law matter.

The Respondent mother sought a declaration that the Applicant father was in breach of several paragraphs of a final order regarding parenting time, communication, and information sharing.

The court found the Applicant in contempt for multiple breaches, including failing to comply with parenting time provisions, disseminating information contrary to the order, and contacting the child surreptitiously.

The court concluded that the Applicant’s right to progress to unsupervised parenting time is suspended pending a Motion to Change, given his ongoing defiance and lack of remorse.

The matter is to proceed to a focused Motion to Change, with case management to ensure a manageable evidentiary record.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking contempt findings against the applicant father for numerous breaches of a final order concerning parenting time, communication, and child-related decisions.

The applicant filed a cross-motion seeking substantive changes to the final order, which the court dismissed as it was not authorized as a motion to change.

The court found the applicant in contempt of multiple paragraphs of the final order, including failing to delete compromising material, sending inappropriate messages via Our Family Wizard (OFW), unauthorized communications with the child through video games, interfering with the child's therapy, withholding the child's health card and passport, and disseminating information about court proceedings and disparaging the respondent on social media.

The court declined to find the applicant in contempt for non-payment of support/costs or for not progressing parenting stages.

The respondent was not found in contempt regarding video call issues.

The matter was set to proceed to the penalty phase for the applicant's contempt.

The appellant father appealed a family law trial decision that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The father argued he was denied natural justice because the trial judge refused further adjournments for health reasons and to retain counsel, and proceeded with the assistance of amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge went to great lengths to accommodate the father and ensure a fair trial.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the trial judge's findings on the child's best interests and imputed income.

The respondent was successful on the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal and her own motion for security for costs.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith conduct by the appellant.

The court found that the appellant's conduct did not rise to the level of egregious or reprehensible behavior warranting elevated costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable within 30 days.

The appellant father moved for a stay pending appeal of a final parenting order that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the stay and moved for security for costs of the trial and appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the appeal grounds were weak and a stay would not be in the child's best interests given the trial judge's findings of severe coercive control and family violence by the father.

The court granted the mother's motion for security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $30,000 due to the father's unpaid costs orders and the weakness of the appeal, but dismissed the request for security for trial costs as they had not yet been determined.

Following a family law trial regarding property division and spousal support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $40,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court found the applicant beat his offer and was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the applicant failed to provide a proper bill of costs, the court declined to assess his 29 separate statements of account and instead fixed costs at $30,000, using the respondent's costs as a guide.

The parties, who were never married, separated after a 13-year relationship.

The court was asked to determine the allocation of proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned property and the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court found that the property proceeds should be divided equally, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary contributions, and dismissed the respondent's claim for a return of her initial down payment.

The respondent was awarded time-limited spousal support for three years, based on the applicant's income and an imputed income for the respondent, acknowledging their intermingled finances and the applicant being the principal income earner in later years.

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

This costs decision followed a motion to vary child support initiated by the father, which was largely unsuccessful.

The mother successfully defended the father's claims and partially succeeded on her own cross-claims for retroactive Section 7 expenses, life insurance, and health/dental insurance.

The court awarded the mother full indemnity costs, finding the father acted in bad faith by pursuing claims without sufficient evidence and being unreasonable in his offers.

The court reduced the mother's claimed legal fees by $12,000 for work unrelated to the successful claims or for clerical tasks.

The father brought a motion to change a 2009 final order, seeking retroactive elimination and reimbursement of child support on the basis that the child resided with him at least 40% of the time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his evidence regarding the child's residency inaccurate and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support due to unreasonable delay, but granted her claim for retroactive section 7 expenses limited to the three years prior to the proceedings.

The court further ordered the proportionate sharing of future university expenses.