A. Lawrence Filion

This costs decision followed bifurcated motions concerning child access and disclosure of Children's Aid Society records.

The court addressed the admissibility of "without prejudice" settlement offers for costs purposes, finding an exception to privilege when issues are adjudicated.

Considering divided success and party conduct, the Applicant was awarded partial costs.

The Respondent, Dr. Norman Lauzon, brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant, Ms. Louise Mignault, brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or mutual possession, and for interim spousal support.

The court granted Dr. Lauzon exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding continued cohabitation intolerable and the balance of convenience favouring him due to health considerations.

The court also ordered Dr. Lauzon to pay interim spousal support to Ms. Mignault in the amount of $1,600.00 per month, imputing income to him from his RRSPs and applying the "interim" exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to compelling financial circumstances.

The parties separated when the mother moved from Ontario to Ohio with their four-year-old child.

Following separation, the parties established a status quo where the child rotated between their residences every six weeks.

Both parties brought motions for interim sole custody.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the child's best interests and that maintaining the six-week rotation status quo until trial was appropriate.

The court granted the father's request for the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer but denied his request for an order requiring the mother to sign a Canadian passport application.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a final order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children to Tamworth to live with her new partner.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking custody, shared parenting, or increased access, and the paternal grandparents sought specific access.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move would be highly disruptive to the children, particularly given one child's special needs and their strong attachment to the family farm and paternal grandparents.

The mother's request to relocate was dismissed.

The court ordered extended access for the father and a specific access schedule for the grandparents.