This Month In Nova Scotia Family Law – October 2025

McLean v Gonzalez, 2025 NSSC 313

Judge: The Honourable Justice Samuel Moreau
Subject: credibility; division of matrimonial assets, parenting time, decision-making responsibility; determination of income for child support; retroactive child support

Summary: The parties, married in 2014 and separated in November 2019, shared one child born in 2016. The first trial addressed the parties' divorce and issues concerning parenting arrangements, decision making and child support. The second trial addressed the division of assets, parenting arrangements and child support. The father sought unsupervised parenting time and equal division of the value of the parties' business. The mother sought continued supervised parenting time, and argued the father was not entitled to a share of the business. The Court determined that credibility was a factor and that both parents had some credibility issues.

The Court addressed the division of the matrimonial assets, which were primarily the parties' business and the former matrimonial home. The mother operated the business essentially as a sole proprietorship, and the father had remained in the former matrimonial home since the parties' separated. The Court could not give a valuation of the business due to the lack of records provided by the mother. The Court did not accept the mother's evidence that she had not kept business records. The Court found that the father was entitled to a share of the business, however, due to the mother's non-disclosure, the Court could not quantify the father's share of the business. The matrimonial home was valued at $519,000. The Court declined to order a division of assets and concluded that each party would retain the assets in their possession, the mother would be the sole owner of the business, and the father would be the sole owner of the matrimonial home.

The Court then addressed parenting arrangements which had been set out in an interim order and which required supervised parenting time for the father. The father struggled with his mental health for a period of time. The Court considered whether the father should have unsupervised parenting time and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to order continued supervised parenting time. However, after reviewing photographs depicting the state of the home, the Court found that it was not in the best interests of the child for the father's parenting time to take place at the former matrimonial home. The Court Ordered unsupervised parenting time, with overnight stays at the grandparents' home. The Court also ordered joint decision-making as the mother had previously unilaterally denied the father parenting time. The Court imputed a minimum wage income to the father as he had provided no evidence for his unemployment, and his education suggested he had the ability to earn income at least at the minimum wage rate. The father was ordered to pay child support and retroactive child support on this basis.

Frizzell v Ballard, 2025 NSSC 334

Judge: The Honourable Justice Terrance G. Sheppard
Subject: contact time with grandparent

Summary: The estranged maternal grandmother applied to the court for contact time with the infant child. The grandmother and mother were estranged due to child protection matters with the mother when she was a child. Due to this estrangement, the maternal grandmother has had no contact with the child.

There are two approaches to grandparent contact time: “parental autonomy” and “pro contact.” Both parents of the child agree that it is not in the child's best interest to have contact with his maternal grandmother. However, generally, contact between a child and grandparent is beneficial. The Court addressed the question through the lens of the best interest of the child.

The child was 19 months old and the court found that the child was healthy, and thriving with strong parental and extended family support. The Court found that there was no prior relationship or history between the grandmother and child, the child was well supported at home, and the reason for conflict between the parents and grandmother had a rational basis. The relationship between the mother and grandmother was highly dysfunctional. The Court determined that the potential negative impact on the child outweighed the potential positive impact, and there would be a significant and negative impact on the mother's mental health. The Court endorsed the general benefits of grandparent contact but found them “theoretical only” in this case. The application was dismissed. The Court required the grandmother to seek leave of the court should she wish to vary the decision in the future.

Bezanson v Dormiedy, 2025 NSSC 336

Judge: The Honourable Justice Terrance G. Sheppard
Subject: sentencing for contempt

Summary: The mother had denied the father parenting time four separate times, and contrary to court orders between the parties. The fourth breach was of a Denial of Parenting Time order under section 40 of the Parenting and Support Act. The mother, represented by legal counsel, entered a plea of guilty. The Court nonetheless went through the elements required to be found guilty of contempt. The mother's conduct met each element. Finally, the Court examined the best interest of the child. The Court determined it was clear the mother was doing everything possible to ensure the child had no relationship with the father and that a finding of contempt would be in the best interest of the child. The Court used its residual discretion to find that the mother was in contempt of the Denial of Parenting Time Order.

The Court then moved to the principles of sentencing. The Court looked at both common law factors and the Criminal Code to craft an appropriate sentence. The Court determined that the only appropriate sentence was a custodial one. This would ensure compliance with the court order and preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. The Court found that a fine or cost award would not be appropriate in the circumstances as previous financial incentives that did nothing to dissuade the mother from breaching the order. The mother had caused repeated and significant harm to the child and father by denying parenting time for significant periods and over many years.

The Court concluded that a 30-day, intermittent sentence was appropriate. This was the mother's fourth breach of a court order, and a breach specifically of a Denial of Parenting Time Order. The mother made no apology and showed no remorse for her conduct. The structure of the sentence was such that the mother could care for the child during the week, and to serve her period of incarceration on weekends. The Court also allowed the mother to purge herself of the contempt after the first 15 days had been served.

Devoe v Johnston, 2025 NSSC 341

Judge: The Honourable Justice Pamela Marche
Subject: credibility; parenting time and decision-making responsibility; child support

Summary: The parents were separated and had a four-year-old child. The mother sought primary care of the child with supervised parenting for the father. The father sought shared parenting. The parents agreed that child support should reflect the parenting arrangement.

First the Court addressed what parenting arrangement would be in the best interests of the child. The mother claimed that the father had difficulty controlling his anger, had improper use of ADHD medication, and unsafe storage of firearms. The father denied these allegations and claimed he was equipped to provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child. The Court considered the credibility of the parents and accepted some, but not all, of both parents' evidence.

The Court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to grant the mother primary care and final decision-making authority. The Court found that violence was not a factor that weighed against the father. Prior parenting arrangements of the child had fluctuated and both parents contributed to the disruption of the father's relationship with the child. There were no safety concerns that necessitated supervised parenting time. However, co-parenting requires trust and communication between the parents, which was not present in this case. The father was therefore ordered to pay child support based on his annual income.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.