Vivian Ese James

This family law trial addressed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children of the marriage and one child from a previous relationship.

The court found both parents contributed to high conflict and poor communication, negatively impacting the children.

The mother was granted sole decision-making, with the father having sole decision-making for Liam's haircuts.

Primary residence for the children remained with the mother, but the father's parenting time with Liam was increased, and a graduated schedule for Keira was ordered to facilitate relationship repair.

The court also found the mother stood in the place of a parent to the father's child from a previous relationship, Kacean, and calculated child support arrears, resulting in a net amount owed by the mother to the father.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause but mandated co-parenting counseling.

The applicant, James Edward Tyndall, brought a motion under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, seeking to terminate child support for his son, Jake, and to adjust his arrears to zero.

The respondent, Miyuki Tyndall, opposed the motion, requesting its dismissal, imputation of income to James due to purposeful underemployment/unemployment, and an order for proper child support.

The court found James lacked credibility, engaged in chronic deception, and deliberately avoided his support obligations.

The court imputed income to James at $85,000 annually, dismissed his motion, and fixed substantial child support arrears against him, ordering continued support.

The Respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order, seeking increased parenting time and make-up time with the children, Abigail and Naomi, after the Applicant mother unilaterally suspended in-person contact due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's employment as an essential worker (bus driver).

The Applicant cross-moved, initially seeking to limit contact to virtual, then proposing limited outdoor visits.

The court found a manifest change in circumstances due to the pandemic and varied the existing order.

It granted the Applicant's alternative request for regular, limited daytime outdoor visits with strict safety conditions, denying the Respondent's request for extended overnight access.

The decision considered the children's best interests, their special needs, the mother's role as primary caregiver, and the health risks to medically fragile maternal grandparents residing with the children.