Results matter when it is about your family
(Note: Results are fact dependent)
January, 2017: Client sought sole guardianship in light of opponent engaged in alleged criminal activity. KJG prepared application. Result: sole guardianship granted on interim basis. Client to return to court to argue costs.
December, 2016: Client had shared parenting. Opponent made unsubstantiated allegations about client to Ministry of Children and Family Development and RCMP. Client's parenting time subject to supervision order. KJG retained to remove supervision order. Result: section 211 report ordered. Supervision order terminated by consent. Opponent required to undergo extensive psychological counselling. Client's parenting time increased beyond 60 per cent of available time. Client allocated most of parental responsibilities. No support payable to opponent.
October, 2016: Client denied parenting time by opponent despite Separation Agreement codifying client parenting time. KJG brought application seeking declaration opponent wrongfully denied and police enforcement of client parenting time. Result: Application granted. Opponent also required to pay for half of Parenting Coordinator retainer within 14 days. Client also granted divorce order.
September, 2016: Client in danger of losing more than $1 million tied up in former family residence. KJG initiated mediation. Result: Opponent's spousal support and property division claim bought out through settlement. No ongoing obligation to pay opponent beyond child support. Client keeps former family residence free from claim by opponent.
July, 2016: Opponent attempted to change parenting time schedule and obtain interim distribution of sale proceeds. KJG defended application and cross-applied to bar opponent from bringing further applications without leave of the court. Result: Opponent barred from bringing further applications without leave, Opponent applications dismissed, $8,000 in costs payable to KJG's client.
June, 2016: Parties had agreement where neither party had ability to make decisions subject to other party ability to challenge them in court. Opponent had over 30 per cent of the available time. Client suspected opponent had substance abuse issue. KJG retained to change status quo. Result: Opponent signed new separation agreement in which opponent consented to client being provisional decision maker, reduction of parenting time, mandatory substance abuse testing, retroactive child support and higher ongoing child support payments.
June, 2016: Client subject to order where opponent had ability to make decisions relating to children, subject to client ability to challenge them in court. Parties also had equal parenting time schedule. KJG retained to change status quo. Result: Section 211 report ordered, report confirmed reduction in opponent parenting time appropriate and reversal of decision-making ability in favor of client. Opponent signed separation agreement codifying section 211 report findings.
May, 2016: Client sought fair settlement of property division, child support, spousal support. KJG initiated mediation. Result: Client obtained $12,000 more than original offer.
May, 2016: Client did not see children for seven months after separation. Client sought parenting time increase, which opponent resisted. KJG brought application for increased parenting time. Result: Client now seeing children 30 per cent of the available time and on equal parenting time basis over summer.
April, 2016: Opposing party sought continuation of supervised parenting time of client. KJG brought application terminating supervision and increasing client parenting time. Result: Client’s parenting time increased more than 10 times.Client no longer required to use professional supervisor.
March, 2016: Opposing party defaulted on mortgage on multiple occasions. KJG brought application to sell former family residence. Result: House sold. $1,200 in costs ordered against opposing party.
March, 2016: Client subject to ongoing child support obligation for adult child following Provincial Court trial despite child not being in school. KJG appealed Provincial Court order. Result: Agreement reached where adult child now required to provide full disclosure of financial means every semester before child support obligation payable by client. Arrears reduced by $750 by court due to overpayment by client.
February, 2016: Parties signed marriage agreement in 2011. Full financial disclosure not provided. KJG brought application seeking production of documents to determine opposing party asset structure and access to income when marriage agreement signed. Application heavily resisted. Result: Application granted.
February, 2016: Parties separated in July, 2012. Litigation commenced in 2013. Five interim applications filed prior to November, 2015, when KJG retained. KJG initiated mediation to resolve all matters. Result: Agreement reached ending litigation on terms favourable to both parties.
January, 2016: Opposing party commenced Provincial Court Action that had dragged on for two years. KJG initiated Supreme Court Action intending to seek psychological evaluation to determine child's best interests. Opposing party contested jurisdiction and brought application striking Supreme Court action. Result: Opposing party application adjourned generally. $500 cost judgment made against opposing party.
December, 2015: Opposing party unilaterally relocated parties' children outside Lower Mainland. Client sought increased parenting time with children. Opposing party sought allocation of parental responsibilities, Joyce Model decision making ability and retroactive and prospective support. KJG conducted examination for discovery shortly before trial. Result: Interim order reached where client's parenting time increased. Disputes to be resolved through parenting coordination. No support clauses contained in order.
December, 2015: Parties had week on/week off schedule. Opposing party brought application changing parenting time schedule to reduce client's parenting time to below 40 per cent of the available time. KJG defended application. Result: Week on/week off schedule upheld.
December, 2015: Client obtained disclosure order with KJG assistance in October, 2015. Opposing party did not comply with deadline to disclose, pursuant to order. KJG brought application requiring opposing party to pay fine and costs. Result: Opposing party to pay fine of $1,500 and cost judgment of $1,000 immediately.
November, 2015: Client ordered to pay child support to opposing party for adult child allegedly attending post-secondary education. KJG brought application requiring opposing party to provide disclosure confirming child in post-secondary studies and exhausted options for financial aid. Result: Agreement reached where child required to provide disclosure. Client permitted to suspend child support if disclosure not provided.
November, 2015: Opposing party made allegations about client resulting in order limiting client’s parenting time and requiring it to be supervised by opposing party’s partner. Client previously had shared parenting time schedule. KJG brought application to increase client’s parenting time and have professional supervision used. Result: Client’s parenting time doubled in interim order. Opposing party to pay half professional supervision cost.
October, 2015: Client left matrimonial home on separation date with children of marriage due to family violence issues. Opposing party did not pay child support for three months post-separation. Opposing party went off work in separation month and brought application for “shared” parenting time schedule entitling opposing party to set-off on child support. KJG brought application for child support, disclosure and that opposing party submit to non-prescription drug testing. Result: No shared schedule ordered, opposing party to pay child support without set off and to submit to non-prescription drug testing.
September, 2015: Client suspected opposing party had devalued family property. KJG brought application to secure family property, pending trial. Result: $235,000 USD secured
September, 2015: Opposing party brought application for retroactive child support and special and extraordinary expenses on interim basis. KJG defended application. Result: No retroactive orders made.
August, 2015: Opposing party rejected client proposal for equal parenting time schedule. KJG began application to obtain shared parenting. Result: Consent order reached in which client to have 50 per cent of available time with children of marriage.
August, 2015: Client facing total child and spousal support exposure of $1,863 a month. KJG initiated mediation to resolve matter. Result: Client to pay 22 per cent of total support exposure.
June, 2015: Opposing party unilaterally enrolled child of relationship at school within walking distance of opposing party residence. School only accessible for client by car. KJG brought application to enroll child in school equidistant from parties' residence. Result: Application granted.
May, 2015: Client stay-at-home parent of disabled child. Client removed from former matrimonial home by court order. Opposing party earned more than $150,000 a year in previous three years before separation. Opposing party refused to pay child support, or spousal support. Opposing party sought sole custody of children of marriage. KJG served applications for disclosure, support and parenting time. Result: Agreement reached where opposing party paying $2,700 in total support to client. Joint guardianship regime. Client to have more than 60 per cent of available time with child. Opposing party to disclose records to determine proper income imputation.
May, 2015: Client seeking resolution where opposing party to waive entitlement to client’s pension. KJG retained to obtain agreement. Result: Agreement made where pension entitlement waived by opposing spouse.
May, 2015: Client obtained comprehensive agreement at mediation. Opposing party required to file agreement in court to effect settlement and did not do so for more than four months. Client unable to obtain tax deduction for spousal support payments in 2014 and exposed to opposing party obtaining further entitlement to client’s pension. KJG brought application to obtain court order giving effect to settlement, determine pension entitlement date for opposing party and divorce. Result: Order made. Opposing party’s entitlement to client’s pension terminated as of mediation date. Divorce order obtained. Order for costs from opposing party to client made, payable forthwith.
March, 2015: Client's Line 150 income over $170,000. Client facing maximum spousal support duration of 14 years. Result: Agreement reached where client to buy out spousal support for less than one per cent of total spousal support exposure. No requirement to disclose tax returns for any purpose other than child support.
March, 2015: Client divorcing spouse likely found to be unable to ever become economically self sufficient. Client's earnings showed steady pattern of earning more than $200,000 a year. Client facing indefinite spousal support award at trial.Result: Agreement reached where client to buy out spousal support for less than half total exposure. No requirement to disclose tax returns on an ongoing basis to recipient spouse.
February, 2015: Opposing party alleged 50/50 access schedule and refused to pay child support in accordance with income. KJG retained to revise schedule to accord with child's best interests and to ensure opposing party pays proper child support. Result: Opposing party's access set at alternating weekends with a midweek visit each week. Opposing party required to pay child support in accordance with Federal Child Support Guidelines.
February, 2015: Client subject to final order where opposing party granted ability to make final decision on parental responsibility issues. KJG retained to change order. Result: Agreement reached where parental responsibility disputes now to be resolved through mediation/arbitration. Client now able to resolve any parental responsibility issue outside of court, within one week, before an arbitrator they can pick for about 20 per cent of cost of court application.
January, 2015: Client forced from former Matrimonial Home. Opposing party limited client's parenting time. Opposing party sought combined child and spousal support order monthly payments of more than $3,000 a month. KJG retained to defend spousal support application and obtain more parenting time for client. Result: Interim child and spousal support order never made. Agreement reached where client to receive majority of weekend parenting time in a month. Spousal support addressed in lump sum through former Matrimonial Home equity. No ongoing client requirement to disclose yearly income for spousal support purposes.
January, 2015: Client hadn't seen four children for over two years due to unilateral relocation of opposing party. Opposing party obtained support orders in Provincial Court requiring client to pay more than $1,700 a month in child and spousal support. Client sought reunification with children. KJG began Supreme Court action to obtain access to children of marriage for client. Result: Client now seeing children once a week and moving toward expanding access. Support orders reduced by consent to $1,400 a month.
January, 2015: Client relocated to Vancouver Island with child of marriage. Client sought schedule where opposing party to have alternating weekend access. Opposing party sought shared parenting and relocation of child back to Lower Mainland. Opposing party brought numerous applications in Provincial Court. Result: Agreement reached where opposing party consented to alternating weekend access and dispute resolution mechanism barring further application by opposing party to Provincial Court.
January, 2015: Client facing more than $50,000 retroactive child support obligation. KJG entered into negotiation discussions with opposing party to reduce arrears. Result: Arrears reduced to $18,000.
January, 2015: Client sought majority time with child of marriage. Opposing party sought 50/50 access schedule. KJG initiated mediation to address schedule issue. Result: Client to receive more than 50 per cent of access.
January, 2015: Client sought removal of opposing spouse from mortgage on former family residence and protection order. Opposing party applied for spousal support. Result: Opposing spouse removed from mortgage on former family residence. No spousal support payable by client. Protection order made.
November, 2014: Client served with application for prospective and retroactive child support and spousal support. Client exposure approximately $2,000 a month in total support. KJG retained to defend application. Result: Interim support obligation addressed through interim distribution of matrimonial property. No interim support payments required by client pending trial.
November, 2014: Client sought 50/50 access schedule with child of marriage to former spouse. Former spouse resisted shared parenting and advanced child support claim for adult child. Result: Client to receive 50/50 access and not to pay child support for adult child.
November, 2014: Parties had 18-year relationship. Client earned more than double opposing spouse in a year. Client facing indefinite spousal support award at trial. Result: Agreement reached where client to pay spousal support at fixed monthly amount set lower than low end support on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. No requirement of client to disclose tax returns to opposing spouse on a yearly basis.
October, 2014: Client had alternating weekend access with children for several months until August, 2014, when it was terminated. Client did not see children for more than 40 days. KJG filed application seeking access. Result: Agreement reached where client to receive more access than client was exercising before termination.
September, 2014: Opposing party unilaterally enrolled child in school of their choosing. Client sought to move child to school of their choosing. KJG brought application for relocation of child to client's school. Result: Order made for child to be enrolled in client's school.
August, 2014: Opposing party alleged he made $18,000 a year despite owning 24 per cent of a company. Client alleged opposing party intentionally underemployed for child support purposes. KJG brought application for audited financial statements of the company. Result: Audited financial statements for company ordered and opposing party ordered to pay $1,000 in costs, payable forthwith.
August, 2014: Client sought relocation of child of marriage from Vancouver to Whistler. Opposing party opposed relocation. KJG brought application for relocation of child to Whistler. Result: Relocation consented to by opposing party.
August, 2014: Opposing party had not paid child or spousal support to client for more than three months. KJG brought application for child support, spousal support and section seven expense order. Result: Child support, spousal support and section seven order made.
July, 2014: Opposing party brought application seeking removal of client as guardian, apprehension of children of marriage, suspension of child support owed by opposing party to client. KJG brought cross-application seeking adjournment of opposing party application. Result: Application adjourned.
June, 2014: Client's access to children unilaterally reduced from almost every day to 62 hours in a two -week period. KJG brought application to increase client's access. Result: Client's access increased to 123 hours in a two-week period and client building status quo arrangement to argue shared parenting at a later date.
June, 2014: Client sought psychological report to determine custody and access issues from psychologist. Opposing party opposed appointment of psychologist and sought Family Justice Counsellor. KJG brought application for appointment of psychologist. Result: Order for report to be prepared by psychologist.
June, 2014: Opposing party sought to set aside client's protection order, order for interim sole custody to client and supervised access for opposing party. KJG defended application. Result: Opposing party on access schedule where opposing party unable to claim set-off on child support. Client remains sole custodian of child. Opposing party under conditions not to contact client, or attend client's residence.
May, 2014: Client sought to keep former Matrimonial Home and protection order KJG obtained in February, 2014 in place. Opposing party sought cancellation of protection order and redistribution of property. KJG entered into negotiations with opposing party's counsel. Result: Client keeps former Matrimonial Home and protection order.
May, 2014: Opposing party forcibly entered client's residence and removed child of marriage. Client unsure where child was for three days. KJG brought application for protection order, interim sole custody and supervised access. Result: Opposing party now prohibited from contacting client, and required to have supervised access at child's daycare. Client also child's sole custodian.