Carmelo Runco

This decision resolves a family law trial between Louris Korie and Henri Korie, addressing property division, support, unjust enrichment, a restraining order, and costs.

The court orders the equalization payment to be made by pension rollover, dismisses the unjust enrichment and restraining order claims, and sets the commencement of support to the month after the sale of the matrimonial home.

Costs are divided, with the applicant ordered to pay $4,000 to the respondent.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a successful motion by the applicant for temporary exclusive decision-making authority and altered parenting time.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $13,540.22, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the respondent's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The respondent argued his actions were in good faith and cited limited financial means, proposing a reduced or deferred payment.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs but reduced the award to $7,000, payable within 90 days, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the respondent's financial circumstances.

The court declined to enforce the costs as support or allow extended monthly payments.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a four-year-old child.

The society sought a supervision order placing the child with the mother, while the paternal grandmother and father sought custody.

The court found the child in need of protection based on a risk of emotional harm under s. 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA, stemming from the paternal family's high-conflict and alienating behaviours towards the mother.

The court found no risk of physical harm from the mother.

Concluding that the mother was a capable and loving parent who would foster the child's relationship with the paternal family, the court awarded sole custody to the mother and granted specified parenting time to the father.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a family law dispute concerning child access, child support, and property division.

The respondent father sought expanded unsupervised access, while the applicant mother sought to maintain supervised access and an advance from matrimonial home proceeds.

The court ordered a graduated transition to unsupervised access for the father, found child support arrears, directed payment of these arrears from the father's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, and ordered partial release of funds from the matrimonial home proceeds to both parties, with a larger amount to the mother.

The motion was adjourned for further review of access and costs submissions.

The applicant and respondent both brought short motions.

Due to time constraints and outstanding productions, the court only heard submissions on temporary without prejudice child support.

The respondent, a self-employed contractor, had not paid child support since separation.

The court estimated the respondent's income by adding back certain business expenses to his net income, determining an annualized gross income of $52,500 and an income for child support purposes of $36,750.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support of $546 per month and adjourned the remaining matters to a long motion.

The applicant sought to change a temporary access order, while the respondent sought to expand his access.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the impact of COVID-19, and the parental conflict.

The court maintained the existing access times but changed the supervision location to the paternal grandmother's home, finding the applicant's concerns about the paternal grandmother's health unsubstantiated and her "investigation" of the respondent's personal life to be overprotective and controlling.

The court emphasized the need for parents to focus on allowing children to love both parents and adhere to COVID-19 protocols.

This is a triage endorsement during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning an urgent motion brought by the applicant father for expanded access to his two young children.

The court, having prior familiarity with the custody/access dispute, noted that the Children's Aid Society (CAS) no longer deemed full supervision necessary and could no longer provide supervision due to reduced operations, resulting in the father having no in-person access.

Given that the police investigation against the father did not result in charges and CAS's changed position, the court found the father's issues potentially urgent.

The endorsement set a schedule for the respondent mother to file responding materials and for the applicant father to file a reply, including an updated letter from CAS, before the matter is scheduled for a judge to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

The respondent brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension to set aside two final orders and seek leave to file an Answer, citing issues with previous counsel and an interest in a residential property.

The Triage Judge dismissed the urgency request, finding that the respondent's significant and self-created delays in addressing the matter, dating back to 2018, meant the issues did not meet the court's strict urgency criteria under the COVID-19 protocols.

The court emphasized that non-urgent matters would be dealt with once normal operations resumed and provided guidance on the brevity of materials for urgent motions.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the resumption of his regular parenting time after the applicant mother suspended it due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court applied the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and found the matter to be urgent, as the mother had withheld parenting time in contravention of a final court order.

The court directed a timetable for the exchange of materials and scheduled a teleconference hearing for the motion.