Yervant Boghossian

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to grant him equal parenting time, relying primarily on the 11-year-old child's views and preferences as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the child was fearful of the father and that the OCL did not accurately capture the child's true views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify changing a three-year status quo pending trial, noting the lack of a full OCL assessment report and the need for cross-examination on highly contested evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody and an order restricting the respondent mother's access to their surviving child to a supervised access centre, following the tragic drowning death of their other child while in the mother's care.

The mother, who was facing criminal charges related to the death, brought a cross-motion for increased supervised access in the community.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restrict access to a centre, finding no evidence that the mother posed a risk of harm while supervised by approved third parties.

The court ordered that the mother have supervised access in the community and daily video contact, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody, primary residence, increased parenting time, and support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing support, and an irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designation.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order or to impute income to either party due to conflicting and insufficient evidence, reserving those issues for trial.

The court incrementally increased the father's parenting time to respect the maximum contact principle and ordered the father to pay temporary child and spousal support based on the parties' current actual incomes.

Appeal from a trial judgment in a family law matter involving division of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The trial judge ordered an equal division of net family property (proceeds from the matrimonial home), denied child support on the basis that the respondent's income was insufficient and the children had repudiated their relationship with their mother, and ordered the appellant to pay spousal support of $500 per month based on imputed income of $40,000.

The appellant appealed on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, erroneous denial of child support, improper imputation of income, and failure to order unequal division of family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and the application for fresh evidence.

The defendant, Pizza Pizza Limited, successfully moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The plaintiff, Paul Porchak, suffered a radial head fracture after tripping over a bicycle rack outside the defendant's leased premises.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, including unsafe sidewalk conditions and failure to inspect.

The court, applying principles of negligence and summary judgment, found no evidence of an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.

It noted the rack was plainly visible, the plaintiff was aware of its general presence, and there were no prior incidents.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout for his own safety, and therefore, the defendant did not breach its duty of care.

The respondent, Christopher MacArthur, brought a motion to add the applicant Jennifer Breen's fiancé, Adam Brock, as a party to ongoing 'motion to change' proceedings, which included a claim for a restraining order against Mr. Brock.

The court considered whether adding Mr. Brock was necessary to decide all issues in the case, applying Rule 7(5) and Rule 14(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that Mr. Brock's involvement was not necessary for the main proceedings concerning custody and access, noting that he would automatically be a party for the purposes of the interim restraining order motion.

The motion to add Mr. Brock as a party to the main proceedings was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that such additions should be used sparingly to avoid complicating litigation and increasing costs, which could negatively impact the children's best interests.