2 total
Father's cross-motion for child's relocation to Kitchener granted based on prior agreement and child's preference.
The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' 12-year-old child continue to reside primarily with her in Etobicoke and attend his current school.
The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Kitchener to live with him and attend a new school, relying on a prior agreement between the parties.
The court found that the mother had previously consented to the relocation and school change before unilaterally withdrawing her consent.
Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, and considering the Voice of the Child Report which indicated the child's preference to move, the court granted the father's cross-motion and ordered the child to relocate to Kitchener.
Husband's pleadings struck for persistent and wilful failure to comply with financial disclosure and support orders.
The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings due to his failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure, child support, and carrying costs of the matrimonial home.
The respondent, who recently became self-represented, did not appear at the motion.
The court applied the three-part test under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules and found that the respondent's non-compliance was extensive, persistent, and wilful.
Concluding that no other remedy would suffice, the court struck the respondent's pleadings and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial, awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant.
