Alison Boyce

The applicant father sought costs of $11,550 following a motion brought by the respondent mother regarding parenting, child support, and disclosure.

The father argued he was the successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

The court found divided success, as the mother succeeded on issues of decision-making, child support, and disclosure.

Due to the father's unreasonable conduct in failing to provide disclosure and the divided success, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and sole discretion over the applicant father's parenting time, citing his ongoing alcohol addiction.

The father opposed the motion, seeking to reinstate supervised parenting time after the mother withheld access for ten months.

The court dismissed the mother's request for sole discretion, finding no material change in circumstances, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, along with reunification therapy.

The court maintained joint decision-making, granted a time-limited police enforcement clause, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears based on his actual income.

The Applicant Father brought a motion to adjust the parenting schedule for the youngest child, Lucas, following the Respondent Mother's relocation to Orleans and changes in school enrollment for all three children.

The court had previously granted the Mother permission to move the children and change schools for Max and Lucas.

This endorsement addresses the subsequent dispute over parenting time and transportation arrangements.

The court considered proposals from both parents and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, aiming to establish a schedule in Lucas's best interests that minimized disruption and parental conflict, while acknowledging the Mother's increased driving responsibilities due to the move.

The Father brought a motion seeking to prevent the Mother from unilaterally changing the children's schools and relocating them from Barrhaven to Orleans, or alternatively, to vary parenting time if the move was permitted.

The Mother opposed, citing financial necessity for the move.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, found a material change in circumstances justifying the Mother's relocation to Orleans with the children.

The court permitted the Mother to move Max and Lucas to Orleans and to enroll Lucas in Convent Glen Catholic School, while Max was to remain at his current high school unless accepted into a special program.

The Father's parenting time was to be modestly increased to account for the relocation.

The applicant husband sought a determination of urgency for his proposed motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent wife, alleging chronic alcoholism and verbal abuse.

The respondent opposed the urgency but indicated a desire to seek urgent spousal support if the applicant's motion proceeded.

The court found the applicant's motion urgent based on evidence including an abusive recording and a police report, noting high conflict in the home.

The court urged the parties to pursue out-of-court settlement and suggested a private voice of the child report.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application for the return of the children, the successful mother sought costs of $9,000.

The father opposed, arguing for no costs or $2,500, citing his own legal fees and a post-hearing settlement.

The court noted the mother's offer to settle was identical to the final order and the father provided no evidence of financial inability to pay.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $7,000.

The applicant father sought the return of the children to Seattle, Washington, under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal or retention in Ottawa, Ontario, after he was denied entry to Canada due to a criminal record.

The respondent mother argued that the children's relocation to Ottawa was mutually agreed upon and their habitual residence had changed.

The court found that the parents had a joint settled intention to move the children to Ottawa, and the father's consent was not vitiated by deceit or misrepresentation.

The application for the return of the children was dismissed.