Tracy Lee Marie Miller

The respondent brought an urgent motion alleging the applicant overheld their child, denied parenting time, and kept the child out of daycare, further alleging the applicant is a drug dealer living in a hotel with the child.

The court found the matter urgent for triage purposes due to the potentially dangerous situation.

Despite severe judicial resource limitations in the Central South Region, the court scheduled an urgent case conference and a subsequent motion hearing, emphasizing the need for immediate judicial intervention to protect the child's health and safety.

The Respondent (mother) brought an urgent motion for the return of children to her primary care, alleging the Applicant (father) unilaterally withheld them due to her profession as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Applicant (father) filed a cross-motion seeking primary care or, alternatively, a week-on/week-off schedule, citing the mother's increased risk of exposure to COVID-19.

The court found the father's actions unreasonable and that he was using the pandemic to his advantage.

The court ordered a temporary week-on/week-off schedule for the children while schools are closed and the Stay at Home Order is in effect, reverting to the separation agreement's terms thereafter.

The court also mandated mutual notification for COVID-19 symptoms/testing and specific protocols for exchanges, but declined to include a police clause.

The respondent mother sought an urgent order for the return of the parties' two children, alleging the applicant father withheld them due to her employment as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was urgent, applying principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright* and other developing caselaw regarding parenting arrangements during the pandemic.

The court directed next steps for the motion hearing, including service of materials and a teleconference date, emphasizing the need to maintain parental relationships safely.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision regarding custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

He argued the trial judge erred in designating the mother's home as the primary residence and ordering unequal access despite a joint custody order, and challenged the support and equalization orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decisions on primary residence, access, imputed income, and equalization were fully supported by the record and sensible in a high-conflict case.

The parties separated in 2005 and have three children whose living arrangements shifted between the parents over several years.

The father, who formed a new blended family, failed to pay court-ordered support and accumulated arrears.

The parties attempted to settle the ongoing and retroactive support issues by agreeing to waive child support in exchange for fixed spousal support, but the agreement resulted in adverse tax consequences for the mother.

The court set aside the settlement regarding child support, finding it cannot be bargained away, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes and the Guidelines.

The father's arrears were converted into a monetary judgment enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties separated in 2008 and initially agreed to joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

In 2010, the mother was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm related to her boyfriend's sexual assault of a minor.

The father sought sole custody and permission to move the children out of the jurisdiction.

The court found that the children were not at risk in the mother's care and that it was in their best interests to maintain primary residence with her in their familiar neighbourhood.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, ongoing and retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The mother appealed a trial judgment that ordered equal parenting time between the parents.

She argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the status quo and the best interests of the children under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and properly addressed the statutory factors, noting that equal sharing was the goal from the outset.

The appellant husband appealed an order requiring him to pay an equalization payment representing half of the damages he was awarded for loss of income in a motor vehicle accident.

The husband argued the trial judge erred by valuing the claim based on the undefended personal injury judgment rather than expert evidence of its lower value at the date of separation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the husband could not dispute the value he attributed to the claim in the personal injury action by presenting different evidence in the matrimonial proceedings to reduce his equalization payment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding custody, access, spousal support, and costs.

She argued the trial judge erred in his orders, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and improperly denied spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's custody and access orders were supported by evidence and reasonable.

The court found no apprehension of bias, upheld the denial of spousal support based on the parties' financial positions, and found no error in the trial costs award.