Theresa MacLean

The father brought a motion alleging that the mother had failed to comply with multiple court orders regarding parenting time and related matters spanning from 2017 to 2025.

The child, age 10, was at the centre of a dispute involving allegations of parental alienation, relocation attempts, and non-compliance with therapy orders.

The court found repeated and ongoing breaches of parenting orders and declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non-complying mother.

The court granted the majority of the father's motion, ordering compliance with parenting time schedules, family therapy participation, and various parental covenants designed to facilitate the child's relationship with both parents.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to change a temporary order, seeking to expand his parenting time from supervised to unsupervised.

The Applicant Mother consented to expanded time but opposed unsupervised access until specific conditions related to the Father's sobriety and transparency were met, citing his history of domestic violence and alcohol misuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but, considering the Father's past conduct and lack of full transparency regarding recent sobriety lapses, ordered a cautious, gradual expansion of supervised parenting time, including a phase for community access, but denied immediate unsupervised access.

The Father was ordered to continue various sobriety programs and provide ongoing disclosure.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant mother sought partial recovery costs of $12,500, while the respondent father argued for no costs.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, noting her settlement offer was closer to the final order than the father's.

The court dismissed the father's argument that the mother's legal aid funding disentitled her to costs, affirming that legally aided persons stand in the same position as other litigants.

The court also determined that the father's pre-litigation conduct, while unreasonable, did not constitute "bad faith" for the purpose of full costs recovery.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs sought, the court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

The appellant father appealed an order denying his 14B motion for leave to commence a motion to change a custody order, which was denied by the lower court due to outstanding costs orders and his failure to appeal a prior order prohibiting further proceedings until costs were paid.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision.

The court distinguished the case from Rego v. Santos, emphasizing that the lower court had properly considered the motion, the outstanding costs were not "crushing," the appellant had not been forthright in his litigation history, and had not demonstrated a genuine desire to actively participate in proceedings.

The applicant, Peter Henderson, sought full indemnity costs after a 6-day trial where he was deemed the more successful party regarding spousal and child support.

The respondent, Kelly Winsa, did not file costs submissions.

The court reviewed the legal framework for costs in family law, emphasizing the purposes of indemnification, settlement encouragement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice.

While the applicant was more successful, the court found the respondent's conduct did not warrant enhanced costs, noting her resolution of custody issues, attempts at disclosure, and financial circumstances.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed amount for correspondence review, resulting in a total of $29,200 payable by the respondent.

This case addresses the determination of ongoing spousal and child support obligations following a divorce, as well as claims for retroactive support.

The court determined the applicant's income based on a three-year rolling average of his professional corporation's earnings and imputed income to the self-represented respondent due to intentional under-employment.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered for the respondent, and child support was ordered for the applicant, with the amounts set off to ensure timely payments.

The court declined to order retroactive adjustments, citing the respondent's failure to disclose income and misuse of funds intended for a child's postsecondary education.

At a Trial Management Conference, the court addressed the issues for trial between the applicant father and the self-represented respondent mother.

The court provided detailed explanations of the legal frameworks governing custody of a 16-year-old, medical decision-making, and interim disbursements to ensure the self-represented mother understood the critical choices she faced.

The court directed the parties to attend another Trial Management Conference to clarify the remaining issues, including whether an equalization claim had been properly advanced and how to efficiently manage the custody claims.