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 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.