Trevor B. Owen

This case involved a dispute over parenting time and child support between separated parents.

The Applicant father sought shared residency for their three children, while the Respondent mother sought primary care.

The court dismissed the father's request for shared care, finding that the mother provided greater stability and that the parties' high-conflict communication issues, coupled with the father's inconsistent prioritization of the children's needs and inadequate housing, made shared care unsuitable.

The court ordered the children to remain in the mother's primary care, with the father maintaining existing weekend parenting time for the two younger children and flexible parenting time for the eldest child based on his wishes.

The court also determined the father's income for child support purposes and ordered him to contribute to special expenses, including an EduTravel trip for the eldest child, subject to an annual cap.

The payor brought a motion to change to review spousal support after the expiration of a five-year period set in a previous consent order.

The court determined the review was a de novo hearing requiring no material change in circumstances.

Finding the recipient had a strong compensatory and non-compensatory claim arising from a traditional marriage, the court utilized the payor's post-separation income increases, setting his income at $724,797.

Spousal support was ordered for a total duration of 17 years with a step-down period, terminating in 2030.

The Applicant sought costs following a successful motion to restore shared time-sharing for their child, which the Respondent had unilaterally altered due to COVID-19.

The court found the Respondent's actions unreasonable but not in bad faith.

While the Applicant's offer to settle aligned with the main outcome, it did not fully meet the criteria for full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) due to an unaddressed issue.

Considering the Respondent's financial circumstances and the impact on the child, the court awarded partial recovery costs to the Applicant.

The Applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning the care of the parties' 10-year-old child, Logan, after the Respondent mother unilaterally changed the shared parenting arrangement following the father's self-quarantine due to COVID-19.

The father sought a return to the pre-existing shared custody status quo, while the mother sought a return to an earlier arrangement where the father had less time.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high onus required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion, as her COVID-19 concerns had evaporated and her other complaints were long-standing.

The court ordered a return to the shared parenting schedule that was in place prior to the father's self-quarantine.

The father's request to provide childcare during the mother's working hours was dismissed, as was the mother's request to revert to an older access schedule.

The court also ordered Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement to determine the child's views and preferences.

The respondent, Kenneth Leach, brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, Ellen Anderson, from the record in ongoing family law litigation.

The grounds for removal were an alleged conflict of interest due to the applicant, Laura Leach, being employed by Ms. Anderson's firm, the possibility of Ms. Anderson becoming a witness regarding employment benefits (specifically, reduced legal fees), and an alleged champertous fee arrangement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no objective conflict of interest, no evidentiary basis to suggest Ms. Anderson would be a necessary witness, and no illegal contingency fee arrangement.

The court emphasized the high threshold for removing counsel and the objective standard for assessing conflicts.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking authority relating to the matrimonial home’s insurance policy, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the home and access for valuation purposes.

The court declined to grant the applicant authority over the insurance policy or remediation decisions, finding it inappropriate given the respondent’s obligations to the lender and insurer and the uncertainty regarding the value of damaged contents.

The court ordered the applicant to vacate the matrimonial home and granted the respondent exclusive possession, while providing interim child and spousal support once the applicant vacated.

Issues relating to custody and access were adjourned pending further evidence.

Following cross-motions in a family law proceeding concerning child support, disclosure, post-secondary education expenses, and security for support through a lien, the court addressed costs and outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant mother was successful on all substantive issues, including resisting the respondent father's motion and obtaining remedies relating to support and disclosure.

Applying the governing costs principles emphasizing indemnification of successful litigants, encouragement of settlement, and sanctioning of improper conduct, the court found the respondent father’s conduct contributed to delay and diversion of the litigation.

The court fixed, rather than assessed, costs and ordered the respondent father to pay $16,000 to the applicant mother.

The court also provided directions regarding further disclosure, emphasizing the respondent father’s obligation to disclose business records relevant to determining income from self-employment.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a temporary child support order, seeking a reduction based on an asserted income of $40,000 and claiming significant overpayment.

The applicant mother opposed the change, alleged material non-disclosure, and sought various ancillary relief including access to RESP funds and security for support.

The court found the father had provided selective and inadequate financial disclosure and rejected his claim that the original order was excessive.

While recognizing some temporary financial and medical setbacks following a motor vehicle accident, the court held that the father’s lifestyle evidence and business records undermined his claimed income.

The court varied support only for a limited six‑month period and otherwise maintained the previously ordered temporary support level.