William Clayton

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the applicant father brought a motion to enforce his parenting time after the 12-year-old children refused to see him.

The respondent mother sought to stay the motion and proceed with oral questioning.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the amended Divorce Act to order reconciliation counselling as an incident of a parenting order.

The court ordered the parties and children to engage in reconciliation counselling to re-establish the relationship between the children and the applicant, dismissing the respondent's request for further litigation at this stage.

In a divorce action, the maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to advance a claim for access, which was dismissed.

The court determined the costs of the dismissed motion.

Finding that the motion had no chance of success and the procedure pursued was inappropriate at a late stage, the court awarded the responding party full indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

Following the dismissal of almost all interim relief sought by both parties in a high-conflict family law dispute, the court determined costs.

Although there was divided success, the court found the respondent was entitled to some costs because the applicant's claims for a restraining order and relocation occupied a significant portion of the materials and argument.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $3,500 in costs.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for interim relief in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The applicant sought to relocate with the children to Blue Mountain, exclusive possession of a chalet, and a restraining order based on allegations of stalking and electronic spying.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce from corollary issues, a restraining order, and an updated custody assessment.

The court dismissed all substantive motions, finding no compelling reason to vary the interim parenting status quo, insufficient evidence to support the restraining orders, and potential prejudice to the applicant regarding medical benefits if the divorce were severed.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a short marriage.

During the relationship, the parties engaged in a corporate reorganization to shield the husband's farm assets from his creditors, including his former wife and a victim of his sexual impropriety.

This involved transferring a 50-acre parcel to the wife and issuing her half the common shares in a newly formed farm corporation.

The husband claimed a resulting trust over all the assets, arguing he never intended to gift them to the wife.

The court agreed, finding the transfers were gratuitous and part of a judgment-proofing scheme, and the wife failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

Consequently, the wife's claims for occupation rent were dismissed.

However, the court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment and to compensate the wife under a constructive trust for mortgage and tax payments she made on the 50-acre property.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act seeking termination of child support after the parties’ daughter began residing with him, as well as prospective variation of spousal support upon his planned retirement.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in spousal support based on the father’s increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the child had resided with the father since 2012 and held that the mother was not exercising shared parenting under the Child Support Guidelines.

Child support was terminated retroactive to May 1, 2014 and the mother was ordered to repay amounts received thereafter.

The court rejected the mother’s claim for increased spousal support but ordered a prospective reduction following the father’s retirement, with a time-limited continuation of support.

The parties separated after a 21-year relationship.

The applicant father, who moved to Alberta for lucrative employment in the oil industry, sought joint custody of their three children.

The respondent mother, who had been a full-time homemaker for 15 years, sought child and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody, finding the father to be a responsible parent.

The court ordered the father to pay table child support based on an income of $112,000 and awarded the mother indefinite spousal support of $450 per month, imputing an income of $30,000 to her to encourage self-sufficiency.

The father was also ordered to pay $7,504 in retroactive support.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court determined interim parenting and support issues.

The court declined to award 'custody' to either parent, instead ordering a detailed shared parenting schedule to minimize conflict and maintain stability for the children.

The court imputed an income of $364,188 to the respondent business owner and ordered him to pay $4,454 monthly in child support and $7,575 monthly in spousal support.

Requests for funding to repair the matrimonial home and for its immediate sale were denied or adjourned.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1996 child support order, seeking retroactive child support, ongoing support for an adult child in full-time studies, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent had failed to provide income disclosure for several years and had received a grievance settlement after his employment was terminated.

The court ordered ongoing child support, fixed arrears at $12,500.40 retroactive to 2006 (including the grievance settlement in his income), ordered contribution to section 7 expenses, and required the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in costs due to the respondent's failure to make timely financial disclosure.

Following a second trial in a bifurcated family law proceeding concerning equalization, spousal support, and child support, the court determined costs.

The applicant was largely successful at trial on equalization and spousal support but unsuccessful on certain issues including child support and some property deductions.

The court rejected arguments that offers to settle triggered automatic cost consequences under the Family Law Rules due to deficiencies in the offers.

Applying r. 24 and considering the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct and the issues pursued unsuccessfully, the court awarded partial indemnity costs significantly below the full recovery sought.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

Following a prior trial that set aside their separation agreement, this trial determined equalization and spousal support.

The court dismissed both parties' claims for date of marriage deductions due to lack of evidence.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $68,260.

The court also awarded the applicant retroactive spousal support due to the respondent's conduct and her economic hardship, fixing ongoing interim arrears payments at $750 per month.