Baljit Grewal

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to reinstate his parenting time after the respondent mother withheld the children based on allegations of physical abuse and excessive drinking.

The mother had reported the allegations to police and child protective services, but no restrictions had been placed on the father's parenting time by the agency.

The court ordered a temporary 5-day alternating parenting schedule pending an early case conference and the completion of the agency's investigation.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

The payor spouse brought a motion to reduce his temporary spousal support obligations due to a reduction in his income.

The parties agreed that a reduction was appropriate but disagreed on the quantum.

The court reviewed the competing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) calculations provided by the parties.

The court rejected the payor's calculations because they improperly imputed income to the recipient by including the spousal support paid to her.

The court accepted the recipient's calculations, which accurately reflected the payor's current income and the recipient's correct income for support purposes.

The court ordered the payor to pay $504 per month in temporary spousal support, plus $50 per month towards arrears.

Following a 24‑year marriage and separation in 2006, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court found entitlement based on need due to a significant post‑separation income disparity but rejected a compensatory basis.

After considering the parties’ incomes, living arrangements, and the applicant’s reduced needs due to cohabitation with a new partner, the court awarded varying retroactive support amounts for 2007–2012 and ongoing support.

Beginning January 2013, income was imputed to the applicant at full‑time hours and indefinite support of $300 per month was ordered.

A claim for reimbursement of post‑separation expenses was denied because it was not pleaded.