Charles Morrison

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2016 consent order to allow her to relocate the parties' two children from Cambridge to Waterford in Norfolk County.

The mother had previously moved the children without consent and was found in contempt, but argued she had no choice due to severe financial hardship and the offer of employment and housing from her family in Norfolk County.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the significant economic and emotional benefits available to the mother and children in Waterford.

The court concluded that the mother was the primary parent and that the relocation was in the children's best interests, granting the move and establishing a new parenting schedule.

The applicant mother brought an emergency motion to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to two of their children due to concerns about COVID-19 exposure, citing one child's respiratory issues and the father's blended family living arrangements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child's health issues were mild and well-controlled, and the father's household, including his partner's children and their biological father's household, meticulously adhered to COVID-19 safety protocols.

The court reiterated the principle that existing parenting arrangements should generally continue during the pandemic unless there is compelling evidence of a reckless exposure risk.

The mother was ordered to pay costs to the father.

The father appealed the dismissal of his contempt and summary judgment motions by a lower court.

The motions judge had found the mother was no longer in contempt after relocating the children back to the agreed-upon area and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's motion to change the parenting order (mobility issue).

The appellate court dismissed the father's appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's application of family law principles.

The court affirmed that the primary purpose of contempt (ensuring compliance) had been achieved and that the mother's motion to change, involving a mobility issue, should be heard on its merits, requiring a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

The applicant requested a revision to a previous endorsement, alleging an error in the calculation of the respondent's income for the purpose of interim spousal support.

The court declined to revise the endorsement, noting that the interim support was ordered on a without prejudice basis and any necessary adjustments could be made at trial following a full inquiry.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and other relief.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking, among other things, leave to amend his pleadings to allege bigamy and to add a party regarding the title to the matrimonial home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim child support for the parties' adult child attending university and interim spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court denied the respondent's request to amend his pleadings to allege bigamy due to delay and prejudice, but granted leave to add the applicant's daughter as a party regarding the property dispute.

The applicant was also granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding increased access to a four‑year‑old child, the court determined the costs consequences of the motion.

The moving party had obtained temporary expanded access pending a case conference and was therefore the successful party under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court emphasized the principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations in assessing costs.

The amount claimed was found excessive given the temporary and non‑dispositive nature of the order and because the claim improperly included case conference costs.

The court fixed costs of the urgent motion at a reduced amount.

The parties separated in 2005 and have three children whose living arrangements shifted between the parents over several years.

The father, who formed a new blended family, failed to pay court-ordered support and accumulated arrears.

The parties attempted to settle the ongoing and retroactive support issues by agreeing to waive child support in exchange for fixed spousal support, but the agreement resulted in adverse tax consequences for the mother.

The court set aside the settlement regarding child support, finding it cannot be bargained away, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes and the Guidelines.

The father's arrears were converted into a monetary judgment enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a bitterly contested motion regarding child custody where the respondent was wholly successful, the respondent sought costs of $13,671.87 on a full recovery basis, including costs for prior appearances, and requested they be payable personally by the applicant's counsel.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $4,000 for fees plus disbursements and HST, limited to the motion before the court.

The court declined to order costs against counsel personally and refused to delay payment until the sale of the matrimonial home, ordering payment within 30 days.

The court determined costs following a successful motion arising from a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a formal Offer to Settle.

The moving party achieved complete success on the motion and sought costs against the opposing party, who had contested whether acceptance of the offer resolved the entire action.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority, the court found the opposing party’s litigation conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, including prolonging proceedings and dissipating assets contrary to a prior order.

The court awarded the successful party $15,000 for the motion and assessed the opposing party’s allowable legal expenses under the wording of the accepted offer.

After calculating permitted legal expenses and applying a set-off between the competing amounts, the court determined the net deduction applicable to the judgment.