Todd Carlton Hein

The mother appealed a trial decision in a high-conflict parenting dispute, which had resulted in an order for joint custody with parallel decision-making authority and equal parenting time.

The trial judge had rejected the mother's allegations against the father and the OCL's recommendation for sole custody to the mother.

The mother alleged errors regarding hearsay evidence, consideration of children's wishes, application of the maximum contact principle, the trial judge's jurisdiction to vary prior orders, and the award of costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's factual findings, assessment of evidence, or application of legal principles.

The court affirmed that OCL recommendations are not binding, the maximum contact principle does not mandate equal parenting time, and a trial judge has broad jurisdiction to make final parenting orders, not being bound by interlocutory orders.

The costs award against the mother was upheld due to her unreasonable conduct during the litigation.

Four defendants—two individuals and two corporations—were convicted of multiple offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for failing to provide proper direct agreements, engaging in unfair practices through false representations, and failing to provide refunds to consumers.

The prosecution sought custodial sentences for the individuals and substantial fines for the corporations.

The court rejected custodial sentences, finding that while the conduct was blameworthy, it did not rise to the level of intentional fraud seen in comparable cases where contractors absconded with deposits or provided no work.

Instead, the court imposed significant fines, probation with restitution conditions, and additional restrictions on the primary offender.

Following a lengthy family trial, the court determined costs on written submissions and found the responding party's disclosure failures and litigation conduct materially increased complexity and trial time.

The court declined to revisit prior costs awards and rejected the responding party's claim for personal compensation for business time.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party, but full indemnity was not granted because the conduct did not meet an egregious bad-faith threshold.

The court fixed pre-trial, trial, and post-trial fees and disbursements totalling $74,537.43 and characterized the costs as related to child support enforcement and collection.