Brooklyn Lester

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking an order requiring the respondent mother to return with their two children to St. Thomas, Ontario, after she surreptitiously moved them to Woodstock.

The court analyzed whether the move constituted a 'relocation' or a 'change in residence' under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found the move was a change in residence, not a relocation, as the increased driving time did not significantly impact the father's relationship with the children.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court found the mother's unilateral self-help move disrupted the status quo and was not in the children's best interests.

The mother was ordered to return the children to St. Thomas or within a 25-minute drive of the father's residence.

This decision addresses costs in an estate dispute where the Applicant sought enforcement of Arbitration Orders.

The court had previously ruled in favour of the Applicant, enforcing Minutes of Settlement as amended by an Arbitrator's Orders.

The Applicant requested full indemnity costs, alleging the Respondent's conduct was vexatious, inappropriate, obstructionist, and involved "scorched earth litigation tactics" and "abusive tactics." The Respondent, self-represented, did not address the quantum but continued to criticize the Applicant and her counsel.

The court found the Applicant entirely successful and the Respondent's conduct egregious, warranting full indemnity costs.

The Respondent was ordered to personally pay $19,930.26 in costs, not from the Estate.

Gough Lewis brought an urgent motion seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against his mother's home, which his sister, Clarissa Lewis, was selling under a Power of Attorney.

Gough claimed an interest in the property based on constructive trust, unjust enrichment, or quantum meruit, alleging he provided extensive care for his mother, Wendy Lewis, and maintained the property for 16 years, with an understanding that the house would eventually be his.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Gough failed to establish a triable issue for an interest in the property.

The judge found Gough's evidence lacked candour and was vague, particularly regarding his contributions and the property's condition, which was contradicted by Clarissa's evidence and photographs.

The court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of prejudice weighed heavily against issuing the CPL, as it would prevent the sale necessary to cover Wendy's significant nursing home and property expenses.

The net proceeds of the sale were ordered to be held in trust, with provisions for monthly payments to Wendy for her care.