Arin Tint

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to prevent his daughter from changing elementary schools to a Catholic school, and the associated costs order.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making authority, sought to enroll their daughter in the local Catholic school due to bullying at the current school and the academic superiority of the new school.

The motion judge found the mother was committed to raising the daughter in the Jewish faith and had secured exemptions from religious instruction at the Catholic school, thus finding no breach of the prior order for the daughter to be raised in the Jewish faith.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's decision or costs award, dismissing the appeal.

The Respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis following an eight-day trial concerning motions to vary spousal and child support obligations and for payment of arrears.

The court found the Respondent to be the substantially successful party, despite some divided success.

The court declined to award full recovery costs based on alleged bad faith or Rule 18(14) settlement offers, finding neither party's conduct met the bad faith threshold and the offers did not strictly comply with the rule.

However, the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour and unreasonable settlement offers justified an increase in the costs awarded to the Respondent.

The Applicant was ordered to pay $120,000 in costs to the Respondent.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for calculating child and spousal support arrears following a 2002 consent order.

The court addressed the imputation of income, the methodology for calculating spousal support after children ceased to be "children of the marriage," and the tax treatment of lump sum spousal support arrears.

It was held that the applicant was not entitled to 60% of the family's net disposable income after child support obligations ended, and that a lump sum award of arrears of spousal support, representing amounts due under an existing order, was not required to be "netted down" for income tax deduction purposes as the Canada Revenue Agency permits such non-retroactive lump sum payments to be deducted by the payor.

The court heard multiple interim motions in a family law dispute between unmarried parents concerning temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, school selection, parenting time, and a request for a custody assessment.

The court fixed child support based on the father's estimated 2013 income and ordered interim spousal support within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, while allocating section 7 expenses proportionately.

The court permitted the child to attend the school selected by the mother and ordered a modest increase in the father’s parenting time consistent with recommendations from the parties’ mediator.

The father's motion for a custody assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act was dismissed, as the parties had already agreed to obtain expert input from their mediator if necessary.

Costs were denied on the basis that success on the motions was divided.

A separated father sought an order that the child reside primarily with him after the mother relocated from Toronto to Sutton without prior discussion, contrary to the cooperative expectations in a joint parenting arrangement under a separation agreement.

The agreement required both parties to reside within the "GTA" but did not define that term.

Applying the mobility analysis from Gordon v. Goertz as modified in Berry v. Berry for cases involving two custodial parents, the court assessed the child’s best interests, including the existing parenting arrangement, maximizing contact with both parents, and potential disruption to the child.

Although the court criticized the mother’s failure to communicate the relocation decision, it concluded that parental conduct did not demonstrate an inability to meet the child’s needs.

Considering continuity of care and the impending transition to school, the court determined that the child’s best interests slightly favoured residing primarily with the mother in Sutton with expanded parenting time for the father.