Barry T. Paquette

The applicant father brought a motion concerning jurisdiction and the habitual residence of an infant after the respondent mother unilaterally removed the child from Ontario to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The court considered s.22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and authorities addressing whether a parent can change a child’s habitual residence without the other parent’s consent.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim that the relocation had been planned and found the removal was unilateral and without consent or acquiescence.

Applying the principle that a parent cannot unilaterally alter a child’s habitual residence, the court held the child remained habitually resident in Ontario.

Jurisdiction was accepted and the respondent was ordered to return the child to Ontario pending further proceedings.

A costs decision following a family law application determined on June 16, 2014.

The respondent mother sought costs for the application.

The applicant father opposed the award and sought to exclude various cost items.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court examined the father's unreasonable and misleading conduct throughout the litigation, including false affidavit evidence and continued attacks on the mother's parenting despite lack of substantiation.

The court awarded costs to the mother while considering the father's financial circumstances and child support obligations.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default final order obtained at an uncontested trial requiring him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month.

The court applied the discretionary test for setting aside default orders, examining whether the default was adequately explained, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The court found the respondent had not ignored the proceeding, had relied on former counsel, and demonstrated a genuine dispute regarding his income and ability to pay support.

Balancing the principle of finality with the preference for determining disputes on their merits, the court set aside the default order.

Because the support order underpinning enforcement no longer existed, the court also ordered the Family Responsibility Office to withdraw its federal licence denial application that had resulted in the suspension of the respondent’s passport.

A custody and access dispute between a young father and mother regarding their child born in October 2010.

The father initially sought sole custody with no access to the mother after she relocated with the child to Orillia.

The court found that the father was not the primary caregiver, was reluctant in his parenting role, and was motivated by hostility toward the mother rather than genuine parental concern.

The mother, despite her youth and some poor decisions, was found to be the primary caregiver and more child-focused parent.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with generous access to the father, finding that the father's inflexibility and hostility would prevent him from supporting the child's relationship with the mother.

The decision also criticized the Children's Aid Society for inappropriate interference with court-ordered access and for failing to follow proper procedures.

In a family law motion concerning parenting arrangements and relocation, the court considered whether the respondent mother should be permitted to relocate with two young children while pregnant with a third child.

The parties had recently separated and the respondent had moved to another community where her extended family resided and where subsidized housing was available.

The court weighed the best interests of the children, including the imminent birth of a third child, the respondent’s high‑risk pregnancy, the availability of family support, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Although relocation would normally not be permitted at this stage, the court concluded that practical considerations justified allowing the respondent to reside temporarily in the new location on an interim basis.

The court ordered interim parenting arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and temporary child support while the matrimonial home was to be listed for sale.

Following a family law application involving custody, decision‑making authority, schooling, and child support, the court determined costs.

The court found that success on the underlying application was somewhat divided but that the applicant was more successful overall, having obtained confirmation of sole custody and final decision‑making authority as well as an appropriate level of child support.

The court also noted that some of the relief was effectively consented to by the respondent at the hearing.

After considering the parties’ settlement offers and the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $6,200 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

Following a successful family law application permitting the sale of the matrimonial home and adjoining hobby farm without the respondent spouse’s consent, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent had opposed the sale but presented no practical evidence supporting her desire to purchase the property herself and no substantive defence to the application.

The court considered the principles of reasonableness and access to justice articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants.

While the applicant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $5,500, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs in the amount of $1,500 payable after judgment following trial or settlement.

Following the dismissal of an alleged emergency motion in a family proceeding, the responding party sought costs.

The court considered written submissions from both parties regarding entitlement and quantum.

Finding that the responding party was required to prepare materials and attend court to respond to the unsuccessful motion, the court held that costs were warranted.

Costs were fixed in a lump sum inclusive of HST and disbursements.