William Francis

In this interim parenting motion, the applicant father sought primary care of the elder child and shared care of the younger, while the respondent mother sought primary care and decision-making authority for both children.

The court found compelling evidence of the applicant's physical and psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behavior towards the respondent, which exposed the children to family violence.

Preferring the respondent's evidence, the court determined that the children's best interests, particularly their safety and well-being, required them to reside primarily with the respondent mother, who was also granted sole decision-making authority.

The court rejected the applicant's "status quo" argument, finding it was created through coercive behavior, and emphasized the importance of children having a relationship with both parents while prioritizing safety in cases of family violence.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to correct an oversight in a previous interim support order.

The original spousal support calculation failed to account for government funding that reduced the parties' section 7 expenses for their child's behavioural therapy.

After recalculating with the reduced section 7 expenses, the court increased the respondent mother's interim spousal support obligation from $1,966 to $2,980 per month and adjusted the parties' proportionate shares of the remaining unfunded expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to terminate previous preservation orders and for directions on property sale proceeds.

The court imputed the mother's income at $350,000, adjusting for unpaid business expenses and undeclared cash income.

The father's income was imputed at $50,000 due to intentional underemployment.

The mother was ordered to pay $3,722 in monthly child support and $1,966 in monthly spousal support.

The court also directed that the carrying costs of a jointly owned property be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule pending a section 30 custody and access assessment, seeking primary residence (8 out of 14 nights).

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence with the father having only 16.5 hours of access per week and no overnights.

The parties continued to reside separate and apart in the matrimonial home, creating a toxic environment.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence and text messages, finding both parents were actively involved in caring for the children, including one child with autism spectrum disorder.

The court gave little weight to surreptitious video recordings taken by the maternal grandparents.

Ultimately, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 equal time-sharing nesting arrangement where the children remain in the matrimonial home and the parents rotate in and out.