A mother was unsuccessful in appealing a variation order transferring physical care and control of the parties’ son to the father in Boryskiewich v. Stuart, 2015 MBCA 23. The court found there was ample evidence that the mother’s “proposed move to Dauphin, together with the surrounding circumstances of that move, constituted a material change in circumstances entitling the motion judge to embark on a fresh inquiry into what was in the best interests of the child.” The court also found that the motion judge’s view that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to be granted care and control given the mother’s fragile state, was unassailable.

In Singh v. Pierpont, 2015 MBCA 18, a custody dispute being fought on two fronts, the court dismissed the Manitoba mother’s motion to dismiss the Hawaiian father’s notice of appeal and granted the father an extension to file his factum challenging the application judge’s finding that the child had no real and substantial connection with Hawaii. The court found that the father had met the three criteria for extending the time to appeal, but noted that it would have exercised its discretion to allow the extension in any event, since neither party had followed up the appeal as quickly as they could have and the father’s factum was only one day late. The court also found that s.11(1)(a) is the applicable rule governing the appeal period and that that period begins to run from the date of the filing of a signed written order, not from the date of pronouncement.

In Scott v. Bilan, 2015 MBQB 39, a mother who made spurious abuse allegations against the father and denied him access to their child for six months in contravention of a court order was found in contempt. Recognizing the need to act swiftly to undo the harm done to the child, the court suspended the interim access provisions and ordered more generous transitional access arrangements, reviewable at the next hearing date.

In Hyczkewycz v. Hupe and Hupe, 2015 MBQB 34, the court dismissed a civil claim by the mother of one of the parties to a vigorously contested family property dispute that a portion of the real property holdings were held in trust for her. The mother presented no documentary evidence to support her claim, which the son-in-law disputed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, s. 59 of The Real Property Act is full answer and defence to a claim for beneficial ownership of property according to the court

A son with a remainder interest in property purchased by his mother (who held the life interest) was an “owner” of the property within the meaning of the definition of a “homestead” set out in The Homesteads Act according to the court in MacDonald et al. v. Barto, 2015 MBQB 33, and his former common law partner had homestead rights in the property they had occupied for five years. The court dismissed the application by the mother and son for an order terminating the homestead rights, but exercised its discretion to dispense with consent to the son’s disposition of his interest in the property to his mother. The court also declined to order any compensation for lost homestead rights, given the fact that the common law partner had not contributed to the property in any way, she and the son had left it in a dilapidated condition when they moved out, and she had taken no steps to pursue an FPA accounting in the six years since separation.

The complex and lengthy decision in Prince v. Soenen, 2015 MBQB 31 is a cautionary tale for those inclined to prolong the resolution of family law claims, whether by refusing to co-operate on the one hand or by growing weary of the process on the other. A three week trial was necessary to sort out retroactive child and spousal support claims, inter-jurisdictional support orders, and the effect of previous interim or variation orders, all of which were complicated by the 17 year time span between separation and trial, the re-partnering of both parties, and the changing circumstances of all of the players.

John-Paul Boyd, executive director of the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, explores new models of family justice in a series of thought provoking articles posted on Slaw over the last two months: Family Justice 3.0: a Settlement-Oriented, Lawyer-Facilitated Hybrid Approach Family Justice 3.1: Inquisitorial and Abridged Hearing Processes Family Justice 3.2: Empowering Families to Address the Sequelae of Separation Family Justice 3.3: Automating Dispute Resolution Family Justice 3.4: A Family Services Administrative Agency Family Justice 3.5: Fostering a Settlement-Oriented Legal Culture Family Justice 3.6: Rethinking Family to Reduce Conflict Spouses warned against spying on former partners – privacy and evidentiary concerns make online snooping in family law cases unadvisable and the family law rules provide better tools to obtain disclosure, according to the author of this Law Times article. Grey divorce is all about the math – this Canadian Lawyer article discusses the increasing number of late life divorces and the legal and financial complications they present.

Leading communications consultant Steve Hughes is presenting two practical programs at the Law Society this spring: Influence: The Art & Science of Changing Minds – learn how to influence clients, colleagues, and opposing counsel to see things your way without resorting to manipulation at this half-day program on April 16, 2015. Dynamic Presentation Skills for Lawyers - communicating effectively to a wide array of audiences is a skill you will use throughout your legal career. Learn how to craft your presentations for maximum impact and what delivery techniques work at this morning session on April 17, 2015. Lawyers and Governing Boards: Avoiding Common Pitfalls – Presenters Bruce King, Doug Finkbeiner, QC, and Tana Christianson will discuss the risks and responsibilities that come with board directorships and suggest strategies to minimize potential liabilities at this lunch program on June 10, 2015. Register now to attend in person or by tele-presentation.

Children in the Cross-Fire: Responses to Alienation & High-Conflict Parenting - Professor Nicholas Bala, Faculty of Law Queen's University and a leading academic on high conflict parenting and alienation, will conduct a seminar on the topic on April 30, 2015, from 2:00 to 4:30 at the Law Society classroom. Contact the Manitoba Bar Association to register. A $15 fee applies. Since April and May are bring-a-buddy months, consider inviting a non-member to the seminar.

The Federation of Law Societies’ National Family Law Program has issued a Call for Papers for their July 2016 conference, to be held in an as yet to be determined location in Atlantic Canada. The deadline for submission of proposals for papers or presentations is May 30, 2015.