Caroline Kim

The parties brought urgent cross-motions prior to a case conference regarding parenting time and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father sought primary residence and supervised parenting time for the mother, alleging she engaged in irrational conduct including having him involuntarily admitted for psychiatric observation.

The mother sought primary residence and exclusive possession of the home.

The court dismissed the father's request for supervised parenting time, finding no risk of harm, and ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule on an interim interim basis.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, noting the father's significantly higher income allowed him to secure alternate accommodation.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's award that determined it was not in the best interests of the parties' two children to be vaccinated.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator erred in his gatekeeping function by qualifying the respondent's experts, whose evidence on vaccine safety was unreliable and outside their expertise.

The arbitrator also erred by failing to admit government immunization guides under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

Having excluded the respondent's expert evidence and admitted the public documents and fresh expert evidence, the court found that the children's best interests required vaccination.

The appellant was granted sole decision-making responsibility for the children's vaccinations, and the respondent was ordered not to tell the children that vaccines are unsafe.

The moving party (respondent mother) brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge from hearing an appeal regarding the vaccination of the parties' children.

The moving party argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed based on the judge's prior preliminary rulings in the case, decisions in unrelated family law cases involving public health guidelines, and media coverage of those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decisions were based on existing law and did not demonstrate that the judge had entered the fray or predetermined the issues.

The court also held that a reasonable person would not rely on provocative media articles to conclude the judge could not decide the appeal fairly.

The appellant father and respondent mother both brought motions to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal from an arbitrator's decision declining to order their children be vaccinated.

The court applied a relaxed Palmer test, given the case involved the best interests of children.

The court admitted the father's fresh expert evidence regarding vaccine safety and the mother's genetic variation, as well as evidence challenging the credibility of one of the mother's experts.

The court also admitted the mother's fresh evidence from the children's family doctor regarding their current health and the psychological impact of the litigation.

A temporary publication ban on the children's health information was made permanent.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and defense of a cross-motion.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by not consenting to an order regarding a property purchased with protected funds, unnecessarily complicating the matter.

The respondent's non-severable offer to settle was not considered a genuine compromise.

The court awarded the applicant $11,400 in costs, payable from the respondent's frozen corporate accounts.

The applicant brought a motion to add a newly purchased property to an existing non-dissipation order, arguing it was purchased with protected corporate funds.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to unfreeze his accounts and release funds, claiming he needed money for living expenses and corporate taxes.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the property was purchased with protected funds.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, noting his failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure had delayed the business valuation necessary to determine the equalization payment.