In Johnson v Mayer, 2016 MBCA 41, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling denying retroactive interim child support to a father who deliberately manipulated both his daughter and the court system to achieve his goal of alienating the daughter from her mother. On appeal, the father argued that his conduct should not affect the right of the child to support. The court agreed that child support is the right of the child, but noted that in these circumstances, where the requested support related to a time already past, it was in essence retroactive interim child support. An award of retroactive child support involves a consideration of a number of factors unique to the circumstances of the particular case. In this case, where the child would obtain no benefit from a retroactive award and where the father had no reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking support, retroactive child support was not appropriate.

In K.S. v. CFS Western Manitoba, 2016 MBQB 111, a mother accused of abusing her child by omission successfully opposed entry of her name on the Child Abuse Registry. The mother’s omission was her failure to keep the father away from the child in accordance with the supervisory order imposed after the child suffered a suspected intentional injury while in the father’s care. The child was apprehended when she was injured a second time while in the father’s care. The mother was never charged with abuse herself and the Agency provided no information on what constituted omission in the circumstances of the case. The court pointed out that there is very little case law in Manitoba or elsewhere defining the term “omission” as a form of abuse within a civil context, but concluded that it can be defined to mean “the intentional or unintentional failure of a parent to act in a manner to protect her child in circumstances where it is objectively foreseeable that a failure to protect or take certain actions would lead to a risk of the child being abused.” (para.58) In this very fact specific case, the mother’s actions “in allowing the father to continue to care for his children did not represent a “marked departure” from the conduct of a reasonably prudent parent in her circumstances.” (para. 65)

In Sedleski v. Emery, 2016 MBQB 104, a high conflict custody trial, the court considers whether the child’s best interests would best be served by joint and shared custody or by primary care and decision-making to one parent. Both parents sought final decision-making authority. The court ordered joint custody, but imposed a decision-making protocol with ultimate decision-making authority to the mother for decisions regarding the child’s health and education and to the father for decisions regarding the child’s extracurricular activities and religion. The court also found that the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him in the amount he earned before quitting work as a paramedic to start his own business.

In Keown v. Mainer, 2016 MBQB 73, the court awarded double costs against a mother who, in opposing the estranged father’s meritorious application for termination of child support for two children over the age of majority, engaged in conduct which at best unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding and at worst could be viewed as improper or vexatious. Of particular concern to the court was the mother’s attempt to amend a “typographical error” in the seven-year-old final order administratively and without notice to the father or his counsel.

C.A.P. v. M.L.P., 2016 MBQB 103 – the court dismissed the father’s request to have care and control of his two children pending the results of police and agency investigations against him concerning what he argued were false allegations of abuse. The court found it was too early in the investigations for the court to determine what form of contact would be in the children’s best interests. SECFS v. L.B. and G.J., 2016 MBQB 95 – the court granted a stay of an adjudicator’s decision that it was in the best interests of the child to be removed from a second foster placement of nine months’ duration and returned to the original foster parents contrary to the Agency’s plan. Dunford v. Dunford, 2016 MBQB 84 - the court declined to strike out the respondent’s “unusual” Answer, but granted partial summary judgment to the petitioner to allow the parties’ divorce to proceed while still preserving the respondent’s claim for prospective spousal support. As it did in a previous decision relating to these parties, the court comments critically on the conduct of the litigation, pointing out several idiosyncrasies in the pleadings and proceedings. G.(J.D.) v. G.(S.L.), 2016 MBQB 83 and G.(J.D.) v. G.(S.L.), 2016 MBQB 71 – these two cases concern a custody battle in which the mother’s malice towards the father and vengeful behaviour (including unfounded sexual abuse allegations) inflicted psychological damage on the children, alienated them from their father, caused them to be apprehended, and ultimately resulted in a reversal of custody and a $100,000 costs/contempt award against the mother. Elliot v. Elliot, 2016 MBQB 80 – the court varied a final joint custody order to give the father primary care and control over the 5-year-old child, who had lived in ten different residences and three provinces with his mother since the parties separated. The court preferred the stability offered by the father to the unstable and volatile life of the mother, especially in light of the worsening of the child’s ADHD and behavioural problems while in his mother’s care. McEwing v McEwing, 2016 MBQB 69 – the court declined to order a change in custody and ordered that the children were to remain in the primary care of the father where they had been since the mother left to pursue a relationship with the assistant pastor of the parties’ church. In order to allow the mother to become a full participant in the children’s education, however, the court ordered that they attend public school, not the church school where the “church disciplined” mother was unwelcome.

The Domestic Violence and Stalking Amendment Act, S.M. 2016 c.3 was proclaimed in force effective May 15, 2016. As noted in the news release and explanatory note to Bill 11, the changes will create broader criteria to obtain protection orders, require mandatory firearms seizures, and modernize the definition of stalking to include cyberstalking. The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Leave for Victims of Domestic Violence, Leave for Serious Injury or Illness and Extension of Compassionate Care Leave), S.M. 2016 c. 2, is now fully in force following the proclamation of ss .2, 4, 5(1)(b), 6, 7 (insofar as it enacts section 59.11) and 8 to 12, effective June 1, 2016. It amends The Employment Standards Code to allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to take up to 10 days of leave, as well as a continuous leave period of up to 17 weeks. The new legislation is described as innovative and groundbreaking in this Slaw post. Bill 8, The Protecting Children (Information Sharing Act) was introduced June 15, 2016. The proposed legislation authorizes organizations and others who provide services to at-risk and vulnerable children to collect, use and disclose personal information or personal health information about them. The intent is to allow non-government agencies to work collaboratively with law enforcement and child welfare agencies to protect children without compromising their privacy. Further information can be found in the explanatory note to the bill and in the government news release.

The Need for a Code of Conduct for Family Law Disputes – the author of this Slaw post argues that the Model Code of Conduct is inadequate to the modern practice of family law and the holistic, family and child-centred approach it demands. Revenge porn, cyberbullying and the law – this Fillmore Riley LLP article provides an overview of the civil and criminal law responses to online bullying, including revenge porn. Love and Marriage: How to Protect Yourself With Contracts and Common Law Relationships: What Are You Getting Yourself Into? – these Pitblado articles discuss why couples should consider written contracts before, during, and after relationships. The multiplication factor – this Lawyers Weekly article points to several cases illustrating how prior relationships add expensive complexity to custody and support disputes. Abdollahpour v. Banifatemi: Use of the Word "Dowry" Not Enough to Import Cultural Expectations into Deed of Gift – this Miller Thomson article discusses an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling confirming that a dowry (including a half interest in a house) gifted to the wife before marriage, need not be returned to the husband’s parents following Iranian custom when the couple split less than two years after marrying. Court awards ex-wife house because husband lied about income – this FindLaw article references an Ontario Court of Appeal decision in which the husband’s “unconscionable” hiding of his true income invalidated an amendment to their separation agreement giving him a half interest in a house purchased in the wife’s name.

Pursuant to its authority to govern the entities through which lawyers provide legal services, the Law Society has been working to develop a framework for regulation that will enhance its ability to protect the public interest. The Society is considering the adoption of a compliance based or outcomes focused model and would like your input. The consultation process is open until June 30, 2016. Those who respond to the consultation questions before June 30th will be eligible for up to 1.5 CPD (EPPM) hours. Alternatively, to learn more about how these developments will affect you and your firm sign up for the Free CPD online webinar, Innovating Regulation, on the Law Society website. Webinar participants are eligible for .5 EEPM hours.

The CPD Replay schedule is now posted on the LSM website. If you missed attending one of these popular programs the first time around, replays are a cost effective way to catch up on your CPD hours during the slower paced summer months. Find a program and date that works for you, with a wide variety of programming topics offered from July 18 to August 10, 2016. Don't see a time that fits your schedule? These DVDs are available for purchase and can be viewed at your own convenience.

The Federation of Law Societies’ 2016 National Family Law Program will be held July 11-14, 2016 in St. John’s, Newfoundland & Labrador. See the FLSC website for further details on the program topics and registration.