Victoria Legris

The Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), on behalf of Shannon Brown, brought a motion for a Warrant of Committal against Trevor Dubeau for failing to comply with a 2016 default order regarding child support arrears, which had accumulated to over $83,000.

Dubeau claimed inability to pay due to unemployment since 2015, a house fire, and living with parents in a rural area with poor internet and no driver's license.

The court found Dubeau's explanations lacked evidence of efforts to find employment or disability, concluding he was purposefully underemployed and his non-payment was wilful and deliberate.

The court granted the motion, ordering Dubeau's incarceration for 180 intermittent days until the arrears are cured or payment arrangements are made.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the interim parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that while the applicant's email offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18, it was similar to the final result.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $1,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought an order vesting title of the matrimonial home, owned by the respondent, to satisfy an unpaid equalization payment and costs from a prior trial.

The respondent was noted in default.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for summary judgment, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 9 of the Family Law Act because the original application under section 7 was "spent" after a final judgment.

Furthermore, the matter was deemed res judicata, as the trial judge had previously declined to exercise powers under section 9, and the applicant could not re-litigate issues that could have been raised.

A motion to change custody and decision-making authority for two children following an initial order granting sole custody to the father.

The parties had agreed to a shared week-about custodial arrangement but disputed final decision-making authority on health and education matters.

The court found that while the mother was a strong advocate for the children's health needs, the father was better positioned to make educational decisions.

The court awarded final decision-making authority on health matters to the mother and on education matters to the father, while maintaining the shared custody arrangement and imposing structured communication protocols.

This is a costs endorsement following a contempt motion in a family law proceeding.

The applicant was partially successful on the contempt motion and sought full, substantial, or partial indemnity costs.

The court found a reasonable basis for the motion due to the respondent's poor communication, but also noted the applicant's somewhat oppressive requests.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $1,200, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The applicant sought joint custody of his young son, week-about shared access, and a reduction in child support obligations.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that joint custody was not in the child's best interests at the present time given the child's young age (21 months) and limited bonding with his father.

The court upheld the child support obligation of $313.00 per month as determined by the Child Support Guidelines, finding no basis for undue hardship.

The court indicated that increased access and eventual joint custody might be possible in the future as the child grows and bonds with his father, but not at the present time.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The respondent, who self-identified as an Algonquin, argued that the matrimonial home was exempt from provincial legislation under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Daniels decision.

The court dismissed this argument, finding the Family Law Act applicable.

The court also declined to order the immediate sale or financing of the home, citing a lack of jurisdiction under section 9 of the Family Law Act at this stage.

After determining the value of the matrimonial home, household goods, and debts, and rejecting deductions for the date of marriage value of the land and inheritances invested in the home, the court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $107,252.03.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by one or more drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, having failed to investigate alternative explanations for the accused's physical condition such as head injury or fatigue.

The court further found that a subsequent demand for standardized field sobriety tests was unlawful as it was made after arrest without proper authority.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations, rendering the Crown's case untenable.