Abrams J.

The father brought a motion for shared parenting of the parties' three children, while the mother brought a cross-motion for primary residence and child support.

The court found that the mother had been the primary parent both prior to and following separation.

Applying the best interests of the child factors and the principle that the status quo should generally be maintained on a temporary basis absent compelling reasons, the court dismissed the father's motion and granted the mother's cross-motion.

The father was also ordered to pay temporary child support and costs of $13,500.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order to obtain primary care of one child and increased parenting time with the other two children on a temporary basis pending trial.

He relied on the eldest child's expressed wishes to live with him and a period where he had primary care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances and emphasizing that the status quo should generally be maintained pending trial absent compelling reasons.

The court also noted that a parent cannot rely on a child's purported wishes to justify non-compliance with a parenting order.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother, alleging non-compliance with a final parenting order.

The mother argued that the motion should not proceed because the final order contained a mandatory dispute resolution clause requiring mediation/arbitration.

The court held that while it retains exclusive jurisdiction over contempt, contempt is a discretionary remedy of last resort.

The court declined to pass directly to a contempt finding and ordered the parties to proceed to mediation/arbitration as required by their final order, adjourning the contempt motion sine die.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a finding of primary residence and confirmation of the status quo since March 2020, when the children were placed in his care following child welfare involvement.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking the return of primary residence or expanded parenting time.

The court found that a new status quo had been established and that there was no compelling evidence to disturb it pending trial, especially given the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation.

The court ordered that the children remain in the primary care of the applicant, but granted the respondent expanded parenting time of three weekends per month.

The applicant beneficiary brought an application for directions regarding the passing of accounts in her late father's estate.

She challenged the estate trustee's claim for $28,409.29 in executor compensation and legal fees, arguing the trustee delayed producing accounts for nearly four years and failed to treat beneficiaries evenly.

The court agreed, finding the trustee was dilatory and lacked motivation to wind up the estate because she was living rent-free in an estate property.

The court reduced the executor's compensation to zero, reduced the legal fees to $3,750, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to compel the respondent developer to answer questions refused during the cross-examination of a deponent on an affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper refusals chart connecting the questions to the pleadings or affidavit as required by Rule 37.10(10)(a)(i).

Furthermore, the court held that the questions asked were overly broad, akin to an examination for discovery, and improperly sought information regarding shared amenity expenses that had already been ordered to be determined by arbitration.

The Crown brought an application for an enhanced publication ban under s. 486.31 of the Criminal Code and the court's inherent jurisdiction to protect the identity of an inmate witness, 'Joe'.

The accused, serving a life sentence for a previous contract killing, allegedly attempted to solicit Joe's assistance to hire a hitman to murder four individuals.

The defence sought to interview other inmates to investigate Joe's motivations, arguing it needed to disclose Joe's identity as a witness in this proceeding.

The court granted the application in part, holding that while the defence could investigate Joe's motivations using his real name, it was prohibited from disclosing to potential witnesses that Joe was a witness in this proceeding or identifying the accused as their client, due to the serious risk to Joe's safety.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary, without prejudice order for equal parenting time over the summer.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for primary residence.

The parties had separated following a conflict that resulted in criminal charges against the father, which were later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond.

Both parties made allegations of substance abuse against each other.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that the maximum contact principle supported equal parenting time on a temporary basis.

The applicant's motion was granted and the respondent's motion was dismissed.

On a motion for temporary spousal support following a 32-year marriage, the court held the moving party established a prima facie entitlement to support based on need arising from reduced earning capacity linked to health issues.

The court accepted that the responding party had ability to pay, while adjusting income and taking into account uncontroverted payments toward joint family debt.

Using the SSAG ranges as a guide for interim relief, the court ordered a without-prejudice holding order of $1,000 per month effective June 1, 2022, pending further order.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving party.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to obey a final parenting order when their two children refused to attend scheduled parenting time.

The mother argued the children, aged 14 and 11, were refusing to go and she could not force them.

The court found the mother failed to meet her positive obligation to actively encourage and facilitate the parenting time, instead leaving the decision up to the children and emboldening their non-compliance.

The court granted the father's motion in part, finding a breach of the order and imposing sanctions under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection issues were resolved on a final basis with the children remaining in the primary care of the father and a prohibition of contact between the children and the mother's spouse.

The father sought costs against the mother for delay and unreasonable conduct.

The court found that the mother's conduct in pursuing contact between the children and her spouse, who had a violent criminal history, was unreasonable and not in the children's best interests.

The court awarded costs of $7,800 to the father.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for week-about parenting time and shared decision-making.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo of primary residence with her, joint decision-making with a veto, and child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a week-about schedule, finding it impractical and not in the child's best interests due to excessive travel time.

The court granted the respondent's cross-motion, maintaining the status quo, granting her a decision-making veto, and ordering the applicant to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

On a motion to change the children's primary residence pending trial, the court considered whether the existing status quo should be disturbed on an interim basis.

Although the responding parent had repeatedly failed to comply with access orders and exposed the children to parental conflict, the court held that the untested affidavit record did not clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo residence was contrary to the children's best interests absent an assessment recommending an immediate change.

The motion was not dismissed, but was adjourned on seven days' notice with strict interim conditions requiring school attendance, compliance with access, and full information-sharing concerning the children's medical care, education, and well-being.

Costs were left to submissions if not agreed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a 911 call into evidence and in finding his driving amounted to dangerous driving.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the 911 call was admissible as part of the res gestae and did not constitute oath helping.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's erratic operation of a transport truck on a highway was objectively dangerous and a marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent person.

The plaintiff successfully brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement after the defendants resiled from it due to 'buyer's remorse'.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and the motion was entirely unnecessary but for their actions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $21,260.74, representing full indemnity.