Canada Case Law

Barnhart v. Murphy

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The child was found to have been exposed to family violence in the mother's home and the mother has not demonstrated adequate protective measures; under the best-interests framework of s.16 of the Divorce Act the court must prioritize the child's safety and therefore imposed interim modifications to the parenting schedule and safeguards (daytime block contact, specified schedule, exclusion of the alleged abuser, supervision/attendance requirements and geographic restriction) pending the scheduled variation hearing.

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Interim parenting order
• Variation application
• Family violence
• Custody and access
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

McFetridge v. Buendia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia refused to admit proposed fresh and new evidence on a family law appeal, finding the appellant did not meet the Palmer test.

• Family law act s.37
• Fresh evidence
• New evidence
• Palmer criteria
• Family violence
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

C.D. v. Facebook, Inc.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

La Cour d’appel a rejeté la demande de modification de l’ordonnance suspendant l’appel jusqu’à l’issue de l’audience de certification dans un recours collectif.

• Stay of appeal
• Certification
• Interlocutory appeal
• Evidentiary rulings
• Variation application
• Case sequencing

Read case analysis

Leybourne v. Powell

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Extension of time denied because applicant’s delay was not adequately explained, the proposed appeal has virtually no chance of success as it impermissibly seeks to overturn well-supported factual findings by the application judge, and granting an extension would be contrary to the child’s best interests and the justice of the case.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to appeal
• Variation application
• Child custody and access
• Best interests of the child
• Supervised parenting time
• Child support

Read case analysis

Pennell v. Larkin

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court awarded a lump sum of $20,000 to the Applicant with a staggered payment plan because the Applicant was the more successful party, her fees were reasonable and unchallenged, the nature of parenting disputes made tariff valuation inappropriate, the respondent's late filings warranted costs but did not amount to misconduct, and the Armoyan percentage formula is not mandatory; a payment schedule mitigates undue hardship.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Parenting arrangements
• Decision-making authority
• Variation application
• Settlement offers

Read case analysis

S. v. S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In a family law enforcement application, the court found the mother wrongfully denied the father parenting time, imposed a $750 fine, and ordered counselling for the children.

• Parenting time
• Wrongful denial
• Family violence
• Parental alienation
• Parenting coordinator
• Counselling

Read case analysis

Sorckoff v. Melvin

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found the Mother delayed unreasonably and the Father did not engage in blameworthy conduct; used Father's Line 150 incomes and fixed 2016 income at $63,500; prospectively ordered table guideline child support of $537/month commencing Oct 1, 2016; limited retroactive recalculation to Jan 1, 2014 through Sep 1, 2016 producing arrears of $6,417; ordered Father to pay an additional $175/month toward arrears (total $712/month until arrears paid) and to provide annual tax returns and notices of assessment; denied retroactive relief for 2012-2013 and denied order for the recreational expen…

Source excerpt

• Retroactive child support
• Variation application
• Undue hardship
• Guideline deviation
• Disclosure obligations
• Access costs

Read case analysis

Elliott v. Melnyk

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Tariff C applies to this chambers variation application; the applicant failed to justify a lump sum because she did not produce legal accounts; applying Rule 77.18(4) a multiplier of four on Tariff C is appropriate given the complexity and conduct of the respondent; consequentially costs of $4,000 plus reasonable disbursements are awarded to the applicant payable within 60 days.

Source excerpt

• Child support
• Section 7 expenses
• Variation application
• Costs assessment
• Tariff c
• Lump sum costs versus tariff

Read case analysis

Mahaney v. Malone

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs; the matter did not justify departing from Tariff A or awarding an enhanced lump sum. The applicant’s conduct and alleged nondisclosure did not amount to a very good reason to deny or reduce costs, and his claimed financial hardship was not dispositive. Therefore costs were awarded to the respondent in the tariff amount of $6,000.00.

Source excerpt

• Child custody
• Parenting schedule
• Child support
• Costs
• Variation application
• Evidence disclosure

Read case analysis

Richardson v. Carroll

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found Sawler guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of contempt of the January 9, 2012 order insofar as it related to specified access and joint custody because she willfully disobeyed an order she had participated in negotiating and then refused to comply for approximately one year; claimed mitigating circumstances pre-dated the order and thus were aggravating in context; custody transfer, compelled apology, compelling the child to attend counselling and property-related sanctions were inappropriate in the contempt sentencing; a monetary fine of $1,000 (payable to Richardson by July 30,…

Source excerpt

• Contempt
• Sentencing
• Access enforcement
• Parenting orders
• Variation application
• Parent information program

Read case analysis