Beth Ambury

The parties separated and the mother relocated from Kingston to Welland.

The father sought primary residence of the three children in Kingston, while the mother sought primary residence in Welland.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, including the relocation factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, and determined that the children should reside primarily with the father in Kingston to maintain stability.

The court also imputed income to the mother based on full-time minimum wage for the purpose of calculating retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside two default judgments made after she absconded with the parties' children to Kenya in breach of a court order.

The mother claimed she fell ill in Kenya and lost access to communication, leading to her default.

The court rejected her explanation as implausible and found she intentionally ignored the court process.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court concluded the mother failed to provide a plausible excuse, and setting aside the orders would cause substantial prejudice to the applicant father and undermine the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to restrict the respondent mother's access to their two children due to concerns about her mental health, seizures, and her new living situation with a partner who had a past sexual assault conviction.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

While acknowledging the father's legitimate concerns, the court found that a drastic change to the existing access order was not warranted.

Instead, it made minor adjustments to the safety plan, eliminating overnight access temporarily and imposing conditions for adult supervision during access, with instructions to notify the father in case of a seizure.

The court dismissed the father's requests for access to occur outside the mother's home and a blanket no-contact order with her new partner.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion to change a final consent order regarding custody, parenting time, child support, and Section 7 expenses for a 4.5-year-old child.

The court maintained joint custody, denying the mother's request for a final say in decision-making and the father's request for immediate 50/50 parenting.

Instead, a gradual increase in the father's parenting time was ordered, leading to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule after the 2020/2021 school year.

Specific holiday schedules, rules for exchanges, passport/travel, extended health benefits, and communication protocols were established.

The court also addressed child support arrears, adjusting the father's payments retroactively and ordering monthly payments towards arrears.

A prohibition on the child's contact with the father's brother, who faced child pornography charges, was also ordered.

The applicant father sought an urgent hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about the safety and well-being of his two young children (ages 1 and 3) in relation to the mother's access, physical and mental health, and choice of partner.

The court, acting as a triage judge, determined that the matter met the test for urgency as outlined in various Notices to the Profession issued during the pandemic, noting that the existing interim order was on a without prejudice basis and circumstances had substantially changed.

The court granted the urgent hearing, setting a condensed schedule for responding materials and scheduling a teleconference hearing for April 17, 2020.