Andrea Kim

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The appellant occupied the home and paid no child or spousal support, arguing that his payment of carrying costs on investment properties was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The court noted that the appellant's failure to pay support left him with unclean hands, and his claim of high carrying costs undermined his argument that the parties could afford to retain the home pending further litigation.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a parenting schedule for his two-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought a highly restricted, supervised, and gradual reintroduction of parenting time, citing past volatility and criminal charges against the father.

The court found no evidence of risk to the child from the father, noting that the mother had been found to be the aggressor in previous incidents and had unfairly created the recent lack of contact.

The court preferred and ordered the father's proposed parenting plan, which included a reasonably expeditious path towards shared parenting time, including overnights, dismissing the mother's more restrictive proposal.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2005 final order regarding child support, arguing a material change in circumstances because both children had moved to live exclusively with her and stopped attending private school.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered the respondent father to pay retroactive Table child support based on the dates of effective notice.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including post-secondary education costs, and dismissed his request to reapportion mediation fees, finding that issue had been settled.

A custody and access trial involving a seven-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought bi-weekly supervised access after nearly three years of no contact with the child.

The mother sought sole custody with no access.

The court found a history of domestic violence in the parties' relationship, with the father having a lengthy criminal record including assault convictions.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended no access.

The court concluded that the child had developed significant fear and anxiety regarding the father, and that reintroducing him would cause emotional harm.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered no access to the father, finding this was in the child's best interests despite the general principle that access is important.

This is a mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law matter concerning access to a child.

The respondent sought to introduce a decision from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dated August 8, 2008, which had awarded compensation to the respondent for abuse allegedly perpetrated by the applicant.

The applicant opposed admission on hearsay grounds and argued that any probative value was outweighed by prejudicial impact.

The court ruled the Board's decision inadmissible on multiple grounds: it did not qualify as a public document, its content could not be used to buttress credibility under prior consistent statement principles, it was not necessary under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value given that it was based on an ex parte hearing where the applicant had no opportunity to challenge the evidence.

A mid-trial evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of three video recordings taken by the father of a seven-year-old child.

The father sought to introduce the videos to demonstrate that the child was comfortable and relaxed in his presence, thereby rebutting the mother's assertion that the child feared him due to an alleged sexual assault.

The mother opposed admission, arguing the videos were taken surreptitiously.

The court found the videos were not taken surreptitiously, possessed probative value regarding the child's alleged fear, and were admissible into evidence.

The applicant brought multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning custody, access, child support, travel with the child, birth registration, and spousal support following a short marriage and the birth of one child.

The court declined to grant interim sole custody, determining that custody should be decided at trial while maintaining the existing access schedule recommended by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and implemented in a prior order.

Child support was recalculated after imputing income to the respondent based on add-backs of personal business expenses, resulting in support of $565 per month, while retroactive support was deferred to trial due to conflicting evidence.

Requests for a restraining order, interim spousal support, and certain additional restrictions on access were denied.

The court also ordered the respondent to be added to the child’s birth registration, established terms for travel within North America, addressed section 7 expenses, and required disclosure regarding life insurance securing child support obligations.

The applicant sought costs arising from the dismissal of the respondent's motions for contempt and for permission for her step-father to act as agent at trial, as well as costs thrown away from two adjournments of the custody/access trial.

The applicant claimed full recovery costs of $3,217.49.

The respondent sought no costs order or alternatively, costs on a less than full recovery basis.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the motions and entitled to costs.

While the respondent acted reasonably, she was not exempt from a costs award.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, with payment and enforcement suspended pending the trial judge's further direction.