Wiri Kapurura

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting and support arrangements for the parties' child.

The applicant (father) sought $8,000 in costs, while the respondent (mother) sought $8,434.32.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party, particularly on decision-making responsibility and support issues, and determined that Part 1 of her offer to settle attracted costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father's conduct, including delayed financial disclosure and breaching page limits, was deemed unreasonable.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $8,000, payable by the father in monthly installments, and dismissed the father's costs claim.

This trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' six-year-old son.

The mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, opposing retroactive support.

The court found the mother's evidence of family violence and the father's controlling behavior credible, which significantly influenced the decision on decision-making responsibility.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, increased the father's parenting time (but denied equal time), and ordered the father to pay substantial retroactive child support due to blameworthy conduct and financial abuse.

This trial addressed several family law issues following a separation, including equalization of net family property, child support (lump sum and ongoing s. 7 expenses), and interest on a pension division.

The court dismissed the applicant's claimed date-of-separation debts for lack of proof, increasing his equalization payment obligation to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a lump sum payment for future child support and s. 7 expenses beyond what the applicant agreed to was denied, as the court found no real risk of non-payment.

The applicant's claim for interest on his share of the respondent's pension was dismissed, as it was not provided for in a prior consent order.

Trust proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were ordered to be held until costs were determined.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for child support, spousal support, and a temporary restraining order against the respondent father.

The parties were first cousins married in Pakistan in 2005.

The father moved to Canada shortly after the marriage while the mother remained in Pakistan with their child born in 2007.

The father sponsored the mother and child to Canada in February 2015, and they separated in June 2015.

The key issues were the father's income for support purposes, the mother's entitlement to temporary spousal support, the amount of such support, the start date, and whether a restraining order should be granted.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his income unreliable and imputed income at $53,300 per annum based on employment records and rental income.

The court granted temporary child support of $482 per month and temporary spousal support of $1,150 per month, both retroactive to June 15, 2015.

The court also granted a temporary restraining order based on findings of domestic violence and harassment.

Motions to change a joint custody order where the mother faces deportation to St. Vincent.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to take the child with her; the father sought sole custody with the child remaining in Canada.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting review.

While joint custody continued during the mother's residence in Canada, the court ordered that upon deportation, sole custody would transfer to the father in Canada, with specified access for the mother including two months summer access and alternate winter holidays in St. Vincent.

Child support obligations were terminated upon deportation, with arrears to be repaid at an increased rate.

The mother sought sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the mother's version of events regarding domestic abuse and conflict was credible, supported by corroborating evidence including police reports and domestic violence counselling records.

The court determined that joint custody would be impractical given the parties' inability to communicate effectively and the history of conflict, particularly concerning given the child's young age and exposure to parental conflict.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while providing the father with direct access to third-party service providers and requiring the mother to seek his input on major decisions, with the mother retaining final decision-making authority.