Annette Di Nardo

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother had commenced an application in Ontario seeking to vary a Michigan Consent Judgment of Divorce that included child support provisions.

The father argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was the exclusive mechanism for varying a foreign support order from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court found that the child support provisions in the foreign divorce could not be varied or replaced by a provincial order in Ontario, as the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the general rule that ISOA is the proper route.

The court dismissed the mother's child support claims, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change parenting terms for a 12-year-old child.

The court granted the respondent (mother) sole custody, removed the applicant's (father) access to the child, and imposed restrictions on the father's social media conduct.

The mother sought costs of $33,948.47, while the father argued costs should not exceed $18,672.

The court awarded costs of $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST to the mother.

The decision addresses the application of Family Law Rules costs provisions, the timing and effect of settlement offers, and the distinction between unreasonable behaviour and bad faith conduct.

This is a motion for an extension of time to file costs submissions in a family law matter involving a change to parenting terms.

The applicant (father) had been denied custody and access to the parties' 12-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought to file her costs submissions five days late due to inadvertence by her counsel.

The court granted the extension, finding that the brief delay, reasonable explanation, lack of prejudice to the other party, and the injustice of depriving the mother of her costs justified the extension.

Both parents brought motions to change the parenting terms of a 2010 custody order.

The father, who had been convicted of a sexual offence against the child in 2016, sought supervised access through a private facility and to maintain joint custody.

The mother sought sole custody and no access.

The child, now 12 years old, consistently expressed her unwillingness to see the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that sole custody to the mother and no access for the father were in the child's best interests.

The court also made orders restricting the father's social media postings about the mother and child, and permitting the mother to obtain government documentation and travel with the child without the father's consent.

Both parents brought motions to change the parenting terms of a 2010 custody order.

The father, who had been convicted of a sexual offence against the child in 2016, sought supervised access through a private facility and to maintain joint custody.

The mother sought sole custody and no access.

The child, now 12 years old, consistently expressed her unwillingness to see the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that sole custody to the mother and no access for the father were in the child's best interests.

The court also made orders restricting the father's social media postings about the mother and child, and permitting the mother to obtain government documentation and travel with the child without the father's consent.

The applicant sought continuation of an ex parte order preserving a property owned by her in-laws and requiring discharge of a collateral mortgage registered shortly before trial in a family property dispute involving claims of constructive and resulting trust.

The court considered the interlocutory injunction test from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).

While the court found serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm if the mortgage fully encumbered the property, it determined that the balance of convenience favoured permitting the mortgage to remain in place subject to limits.

The court ordered that the respondents could draw no more than $250,000 on the secured line of credit pending trial and continued the certificate of pending litigation.

The preservation and mortgage discharge aspects of the prior ex parte order were set aside and no costs were awarded.