Thomas W. Curran

The applicant mother sought summary judgment for sole custody, child support, and a denial of access to the respondent father.

The respondent father had a history of egregious misconduct, including criminal charges, harassment of the applicant, and violating previous court orders.

The court applied the expanded summary judgment rules under the Family Law Rules, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and child support, and suspended the respondent's access, finding that his behavior made even supervised access unworkable and contrary to the child's best interests.

The father brought a motion for interim custody of the parties' one-year-old child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The mother had unilaterally left the matrimonial home with the child, and the father subsequently sold the home without her consent.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and her departure was not a tactical maneuver, whereas the father's sale of the home prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain with the mother, granted the father specified parenting time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child and spousal support.

On a motion to change a separation agreement, the applicant sought amendments to provisions governing child support and post-secondary education expenses for children over the age of 18 pursuing education.

The court found no binding agreement had been reached at a prior case conference regarding the proposed amendments.

The court amended the agreement to require child support while a child over 18 attends post-secondary education on a full-time basis and imposed an age limit of 25 for such support where the child resides with a parent.

The court also replaced the existing post-secondary expense clause with a detailed budgeting and contribution framework requiring the child to contribute between one-third and two-thirds of expenses, with the remainder shared proportionally between the parents.

Given the mixed success of the parties, no costs were ordered.

The parties had an unconventional marriage, living apart for 17 years while the applicant worked abroad for the United Nations and the respondent raised their four children in Ottawa.

The applicant argued the valuation date for equalization should be April 1992, while the respondent argued it should be May 31, 2009, after a final period of cohabitation.

The court found that although the parties were separated from 2002 to 2008, there was always a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and they did in fact reconcile in May 2008.

The valuation date was determined to be the date of final separation, May 31, 2009.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the calculation of child support arrears owed by the respondent pursuant to Minutes of Settlement signed in September 2011.

The court determined the retroactive date for child support, the applicable Federal Child Support Guidelines table amounts based on the respondent's province of residence, and the appropriate credits for child support already paid, travel costs, and section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $18,811.44 in child support arrears and $8,000 in costs.