Adam Black

The mother appealed two arbitration awards that granted the father equal parenting time and ordered her to pay $25,000 in costs.

She argued the arbitrator erred in applying the best interests of the child test, changing the parenting schedule without expert evidence, and assuming equal time would reduce conflict.

The mother also sought to introduce fresh evidence, including an affidavit from a former therapist.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's decisions.

The court also rejected most of the fresh evidence, noting the therapist did not qualify as a participant expert and the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' one-year-old son from Ontario to California.

The respondent mother argued that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was California, as it was the only place where both parents lived together with the child, and the father had not consented to a change in residence.

The court also dismissed the mother's Article 13(b) defence, finding insufficient evidence that a return would create an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered returned to California, where custody and access issues would be determined.

The applicant brought a motion to change the spousal and child support provisions of a 2012 consent order that incorporated a separation agreement.

She argued that the respondent's receipt of a retroactive lump sum payment following a firefighter arbitration constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no legal basis to set aside the agreement and holding that the possibility of a retroactive wage increase was known or ought to have been known when the agreement was signed, thus failing to meet the threshold for a material change.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order for joint custody, seeking sole custody of the two children.

He argued that the mother had resiled from the dispute resolution mechanism in their agreement and failed to cooperate with counselling for their child.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test and found no material change in circumstances, as the high-conflict nature of the relationship was foreseen when the consent order was made.

The motion was dismissed, but the court provided strict directions on interpreting the dispute resolution mechanism and ordered the parties to proceed with counselling.