Barry Douglas Dryland

The Applicant Mother sought a court order to relocate the primary residence of her three children to North Bay, Ontario, citing a housing crisis and eviction in her current location of Orillia.

The Respondent Father opposed the motion, arguing the Applicant failed to provide proper notice and raised concerns about her stability and the children's best interests.

The court found the Applicant's reasons for relocation compelling, particularly the lack of affordable housing and the Respondent's failure to consistently pay child support.

The court determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting the Respondent's lack of a viable alternative parenting plan and his reluctance to take on greater responsibilities.

The motion to relocate was granted, and the parties were ordered to share transportation for the Respondent's parenting time.

The self-represented applicant sought costs following a 21-day trial where she was awarded $15,573.63 for spousal support and contributions to a property.

The respondents sought full recovery costs of $71,473.57.

The court found the applicant's conduct highly unreasonable for most of the litigation, disentitling her to costs for that period.

However, after she made a reasonable settlement offer mid-trial, she was entitled to partial recovery costs.

The court awarded the applicant $3,250 in costs, factoring in her opportunity cost and the legal assistance she received.

A self‑represented spouse sought spousal support and a proprietary interest in a home following the breakdown of a marriage.

The property was legally owned by the respondent brother‑in‑law, though the spouse and her husband had contributed labour and funds while living there under the belief that the husband would eventually acquire it.

The court rejected claims that the husband owned the property or that the brother held title in trust, but found the owner had been unjustly enriched by the applicant’s contributions.

Applying the principles from Kerr v. Baranow, the court awarded a monetary remedy reflecting half of the mortgage principal reduction and a share of the property’s value increase.

Limited retroactive spousal support was also ordered against the husband.