William R. Clayton

The parties separated in 2008 and have two children, one of whom has severe autism requiring constant care.

The mother sought sole custody, retroactive child and spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father, who had been unemployed or underemployed since 2010, sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and the sale of the home.

The court granted the mother sole custody and exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's behavior abusive and controlling.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the father due to his intentional unemployment and ordered retroactive child and spousal support commencing July 1, 2012.

The applicant sought to confirm a provisional order from Saskatchewan varying a spousal support order.

The original order calculated support based on Line 150 income.

The respondent incorporated a professional corporation, artificially reducing his Line 150 income.

The court confirmed the provisional order, finding the incorporation a material change in circumstances and the respondent's conduct blameworthy.

It ordered retroactive support, adjusted disclosure dates, and addressed tax implications for arrears, remitting the matter back to Saskatchewan for final arrears calculation.

The parties, Natasha Tara Fraser (Applicant) and Douglas Dale Fraser (Respondent), brought motions and cross-motions for various interim relief following their separation.

Key issues included the distribution of net sale proceeds from a cottage and the matrimonial home, the Applicant's request to amend pleadings to assert a trust claim, the allocation of responsibilities for a leased vehicle, and the division of matrimonial home contents.

The court granted the Applicant leave to amend her pleadings for a trust claim, limited to $28,500, and ordered specific distributions of sale proceeds, including payments to the Canada Revenue Agency and a down payment for the Respondent's new home, while securing the Applicant's claims through the Respondent's RRSP investments and a portion of the cottage sale proceeds.

The court also made orders regarding the Honda Odyssey vehicle and the interim possession of certain matrimonial home contents, particularly Zander's bedroom items.

The parties separated after a 14-year relationship and contested custody of their 8-year-old child, as well as support and equalization.

The applicant father sought joint custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

Relying on the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's expressed preferences, the court ordered joint custody, finding the mother's animosity toward the father would likely impede maximum contact if she were granted sole custody.

The court also imputed $15,000 of pre-tax corporate income to the father, equalizing the parties' incomes and resulting in no child or spousal support being payable.

Finally, the court determined the mother had no legal interest in the matrimonial home and could not claim half its mortgage as a debt.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking an order for her son C. to continue spending half his time with her, for C. and his mother to attend counselling, and for a police assistance order.

The applicant (father) had allowed C., then age 10, to decide his own custodial care, leading to C.'s estrangement from his mother.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, noting he abdicated parental responsibility and breached a separation agreement.

While acknowledging C.'s wishes, the court determined they were influenced and not in his best interests.

The court ordered defined interim access for C. with the mother and granted the mother sole authority to arrange counselling for C. and herself to rebuild their relationship, with costs shared.

The request for a police assistance order was adjourned.

The respondent was successful on a motion to change, reducing his spousal support obligation from $900 to $725 per month.

He sought costs of $18,000 on an all-inclusive basis.

The applicant, who was self-represented and impecunious, argued that each party should bear their own costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11), including the applicant's financial circumstances, the extent of the variation, and the respondent's reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000, to be set off against his outstanding spousal support arrears.

This costs endorsement followed a high-conflict custody trial that settled on its seventh day.

The respondent mother sought substantial costs, and the court, applying Family Law Rule 24, determined she was more successful on the weighty issues despite mixed success on others.

The court considered the three purposes of costs (indemnity, settlement, sanction) and the parties' litigation conduct, including the father's pursuit of "unfounded" allegations and his initiative in settling.

The applicant father was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs to the respondent mother.

The applicants (father and paternal grandparents) brought a motion for interim custody and access for two children.

The respondent (mother) opposed.

The court addressed conflicting evidence regarding parental fitness, the mother's mental health, and the role of the grandparents as de facto caregivers.

Emphasizing the children's best interests, the court awarded interim joint custody to the mother and grandparents, establishing a detailed rotating parenting schedule with conditions on the mother's residence and supervision.

The father was granted reasonable access during the grandparents' parenting time.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and was better attuned to the child's needs, while the father's rigid approach to parenting time caused unnecessary conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with a specified access schedule for the father, ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and arrears, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the mother to the father.

The applicant, Kenneth Holtby, sought costs after a 17-day trial where he largely succeeded in retaining sole ownership of farm assets and land against the respondent, Cheryl Draper.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, particularly on the major ownership issues, and was entitled to costs.

However, the requested quantum of $185,000 was reduced to $100,000 due to the applicant's chronic non-compliance with court orders, the respondent's more reasonable settlement efforts, and discrepancies in the applicant's costs filings.

The court also considered the respondent's partial success on equalization and constructive trust claims and her ability to pay.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim custody and an interim parenting schedule, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody and a flexible schedule based on his work travel.

The court emphasized the children's need for stability and predictability, finding that the father's proposal sacrificed certainty for his employment schedule.

The court ordered the temporary parenting schedule proposed by the mother, noting that the father's employment should be flexible to accommodate his parental responsibilities.

This endorsement follows a lengthy trial where the applicant husband was found to own the farm assets.

The parties were unable to agree on the quantum of equalization payment, amounts owing for Lot 8, repayment for Class B shares, and costs/interest.

The court addressed these outstanding financial issues, largely adopting the respondent wife's calculations for farm equipment and vehicles, using averages for cattle and crops, and setting the land value (excluding Lot 8) at $300,000.

The court also ordered the husband to pay the wife for Lot 8 and Class B shares, including prejudgment interest, and granted the wife's request for security against the husband's property for the equalization payment due to his history of asset reorganization.

Costs submissions were deferred.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their 6-year-old son following their separation.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father initially sought joint custody but amended his claim to sole custody at trial.

A section 30 assessment recommended a parallel parenting regime, but the court rejected this due to the entrenched conflict and inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother, finding she was better positioned to provide a stable environment and multidimensional guidance, and was more likely to foster the child's relationship with the father.

The father was granted a specified access schedule.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the child regarding alleged physical discipline in the father's home, finding them inadmissible for the truth of their contents due to reliability concerns.

The father was ordered to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines.

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 mother brought a motion to stay a temporary order granting the respondent father supervised access to their two children, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother objected to the paternal grandmother acting as the access supervisor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to establish irreparable harm to the children or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also found that fresh evidence regarding transitional difficulties during access did not justify staying or varying the order.

In an uncontested family law trial, the court determined child support, spousal support, and equalization following the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $196,879 and ordered periodic spousal and child support.

Finding that the respondent recklessly depleted the equity in the matrimonial home post-separation by unilaterally withdrawing approximately $400,000 from a joint line of credit, the court ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, increasing the equalization payment by $199,500.

To satisfy the equalization payment, the court vested the matrimonial home and a jointly owned vehicle in the applicant.

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.