Christina Hinds

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking a sealing order for an affidavit and to exclude certain evidence allegedly obtained improperly by the defendants.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for a sealing order, finding the plaintiff did not meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the security for costs motion, the court found the defendants met their initial onus of showing good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $105,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce child and spousal support arrears and section 7 expenses, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion to terminate or vary support.

The court found that the adult child ceased being a 'child of the marriage' as of April 1, 2018, after withdrawing from parental control and failing to pursue a reasonable educational plan.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the applicant due to her failure to seek employment and her rent-free living situation.

The court allowed partial sharing of the respondent's post-separation income increases but ordered spousal support to terminate at the end of 2022.

The applicant's motion was dismissed and the respondent's cross-motion was granted.