Ashley Waye

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant mother appealed a relocation order that granted primary residence of the children to the father in Lindsay, Ontario.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by bifurcating the trial (relocation before custody), misapplied relocation law, and failed to accommodate her disability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bifurcation was appropriate for the children's best interests, the relocation decision was well-supported by evidence and consistent with legal principles, and there was no error in refusing adjournments or accommodating the appellant.

The court emphasized the children's thriving in their new environment.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support, and the respondent sought an order for the sale of two co-owned properties located in Quebec.

The court found the applicant entitled to support and imputed an income of $138,265 to the respondent based on a three-year average of his corporate earnings.

Temporary spousal support was ordered at $3,000 per month, factoring in the applicant's exclusive possession of one Quebec property and imputed rental income from the other.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to sell the Quebec properties, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of extra-provincial lands under the Partition Act or Family Law Act, and that the Catania test for in personam jurisdiction was not met.

In a bifurcated family law trial, the court determined the issue of decision-making responsibility for the parties' two children.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority, while the respondent mother sought split decision-making authority.

The court found the parents to be highly conflicted, with the mother exhibiting medical hypervigilance and the father showing aloofness regarding educational needs.

Applying the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act factors, the court concluded that a split order was unworkable and awarded final decision-making responsibility to the applicant father, subject to a structured consultation process.

This 13-day trial concerned custody, access, and child support for an 11-year-old child, as well as a contempt motion against the applicant mother.

The court found the mother's conduct to be characterized by dishonesty, manipulation, and a lack of integrity, impacting her capacity to parent.

The child's wishes to reside primarily with the father and have unstructured access with the mother were given significant weight.

The court granted sole custody and primary residential care to the father, with structured access for the mother.

No retroactive or ongoing child support was ordered from either parent.

The mother was found in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, resulting in a $250 fine.

The applicant sought interim support from his late wife's estate and moved to strike portions of the respondents' affidavits.

The court adjourned the main application for support pending the resolution of a motion for directions, which resulted in several consent orders.

The court dismissed the motion for interim support, finding the applicant had significant assets and the estate was already covering the operating costs of the disputed cottage.

The court struck portions of the respondents' affidavits that dealt with irrelevant post-death events but declined to strike paragraphs addressing family dynamics that responded to the applicant's own evidence.