Viola Nabrotzky

Following a lengthy and acrimonious family law trial concerning custody and access to a young child, the court considered the best interests of the child under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The parties had an extensive litigation history marked by high conflict, numerous interim orders, and serious allegations, many of which were unsupported hearsay and therefore not relied upon.

An expert parenting capacity assessment recommended sole custody to the father, finding the parents incapable of effective co‑parenting and identifying significant concerns about the stability of the mother’s household and the safety risks posed by one sibling’s behavioural issues.

The court accepted the expert’s recommendations and concluded that joint or parallel parenting would not serve the child’s best interests.

Sole custody was awarded to the father with structured daytime access to the mother, while child support was deferred due to the mother’s financial circumstances.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion seeking production of various third‑party records relating to the parties’ children, including therapy, medical, school, and social service records.

The court adopted a procedure similar to that used in criminal third‑party records applications and ordered the records produced to the court in sealed envelopes for judicial review before any disclosure.

After reviewing the materials, the court prepared a judicial summary describing the contents to assist counsel in making submissions on whether disclosure to the requesting party should occur.

The decision outlines the categories of records received from multiple service providers and sets the matter down for a further hearing to determine disclosure.

The court also emphasized that family litigation should not proceed through endless motions and encouraged the parties to move toward trial in the children’s best interests.

Following a family law trial concerning the imputation of income for child support purposes, the court found that the father had deliberately organized his financial affairs to conceal income and frustrate his child support obligations.

Although the father succeeded on a minor access issue, the mother prevailed on the primary issue relating to income and child support.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs of $17,320 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court held that the father's obstructive conduct, omissions in financial disclosure, and contradictory evidence justified the requested costs award.

Costs were awarded to the mother in full.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The application judge found the equalization claim was statute-barred as the parties separated more than six years before the application was commenced, and declined to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The spousal support claim was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish financial hardship or need.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support based on the respondent father's income as a self‑employed business owner.

The central issue was whether the father’s reported income accurately reflected the money available for support or whether income should be imputed under ss. 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found the father’s financial evidence unreliable and concluded he had structured his business affairs to minimize apparent income and avoid support obligations.

The court imputed significantly higher income for several years and set an ongoing imputed income for future support calculations.

The court also addressed a minor access dispute and ordered the parents to share transportation responsibilities.