Carolyn Christine McNeill

A motion concerning interim custody and access of a two-year-old child.

The father sought temporary sole custody after the child sustained unexplained injuries to her face while in the mother's care.

The mother opposed the motion and sought sole custody with liberal access to the father, or alternatively, joint custody.

The court found the mother's evidence regarding the injuries to be inconsistent and unreliable, and determined that the mother had failed to provide adequate supervision and stability.

The court granted the father temporary sole custody with the mother receiving limited supervised day access only.

This is a costs decision following a motion in a family law matter concerning the relocation of a child to Montreal.

The mother was granted permission to move with the child and obtained temporary access orders for the father.

The mother sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $14,749.16, while the father sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue and awarded costs, but reduced the amount to $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $100 commencing January 1, 2015.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought a fifteen-month jail sentence, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence of ninety days plus probation.

The court imposed an eleven-month jail sentence with a two-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing considered the serious injuries to the victim, including permanent disability and chronic pain, balanced against the defendant's own significant injuries from the collision, his guilty plea, community service, and remorse.

The court rejected the defence position that the defendant's medical condition warranted an intermittent sentence, finding that while medical factors could place the defendant lower in the sentencing range, they did not justify a fundamentally different outcome.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure orders and to obtain orders for spousal and child support.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and extensions over a one-year period.

The court found the respondent made no real attempt to obtain documents and struck his pleadings, proceeding on an unopposed basis.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his ability to earn investment income from lottery winnings and awarded child support of $664 per month and spousal support of $387 per month on a time-limited basis.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support orders dated October 4, 2010 and October 25, 2010.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion asking the court to decline jurisdiction, arguing that the appropriate forum was a U.S. state where she had relocated with the child after being served with the motion to change.

The court dismissed the applicant's jurisdictional motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction and that the applicant had not satisfied her onus to show that the foreign jurisdiction was more appropriate.

The court granted the respondent's motion to change in part, reducing the imputed income from $53,000 to $32,203 per annum, resulting in ongoing child support of $271 per month, and reducing arrears by $4,500 with a repayment schedule.