Christopher M. Arnone

This addendum addresses the transition period for temporary parenting time and child support following the separation of Daniel Adam Wojick and Lindsay Kristin Wojick.

The court clarifies the implementation of a 50/50 parenting schedule and considers the respondent’s proposed transitional arrangements, ultimately affirming the original decision for an earlier transition to equal parenting time.

The applicant, Daniel Adam Wojick, sought a temporary order for parenting time and support regarding the parties' two children.

The court reviewed the evidence of both parties, the proposed parenting schedules, and the best interests of the children, ultimately adopting a transition plan leading to a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The decision also set out temporary child support obligations for both parties, based on their respective incomes and the evolving parenting schedule.

The respondent, Chelsea DeGagne, brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support, seeking an increase retroactive to January 1, 2021, and orders for financial disclosure and life insurance verification.

The applicant, Cale Swearengen, failed to file responding materials or appear at the hearing.

The court found a significant material change in circumstances based on Chelsea's evidence of Cale's increased income from two sources, including a contracting business that had expanded significantly.

The court imputed income to Cale based on Chelsea's calculations, finding them reasonable given Cale's non-disclosure.

The motion was granted, child support was increased retroactively, and Cale was ordered to provide financial disclosure and maintain a life insurance policy.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to Chelsea.

In this family law dispute, both parties brought motions concerning support arrears, property payments, and financial disclosure.

The primary contested issue was the amount of child and spousal support arrears, with the applicant seeking over $21,000 and the respondent proposing approximately $9,900.

The court fixed the arrears at the respondent's proposed amount of $9,927.32 as of December 31, 2023, finding the applicant's higher claim included disputed section 7 expenses and property taxes not covered by existing orders.

The court also made orders regarding mortgage payments, property taxes, and the production of income tax returns.

To manage the long-standing litigation, the court ordered that no further motions could be brought without leave and directed the parties to arrange a trial management conference to move the matter to trial.

The respondent, Frank Lopez, brought a motion to terminate a temporary spousal support order of $11,000 per month, arguing a significant change in his income due to the involuntary termination of his professional corporation's partnership with a national accounting firm.

The applicant, Sandra Lopez, opposed, asserting Frank was intentionally underemployed and seeking income imputation.

The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate a need for temporary spousal support and that the respondent was not intentionally underemployed, accepting his explanation that the partnership termination was involuntary.

The motion to terminate spousal support was granted, effective October 1, 2023, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions in a family law dispute concerning children's counselling, distribution of matrimonial home proceeds, and Section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the children to attend counselling at a specific firm without the applicant's consent, with shared costs.

It dismissed the applicant's request for an immediate disbursement of funds from the matrimonial home proceeds, pending further financial valuations.

The issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and certain Section 7 expenses were adjourned for a longer hearing.

The Applicant Wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an extension of time to set the matter down for trial.

The Respondent Husband disputed the quantum of support, arguing the Wife was underemployed, the separation date was earlier than claimed, and his obligations to a second family should reduce his support payments.

The court found the Wife established a prima facie case for spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The court ordered the Husband to pay $1,695 per month in temporary spousal support, representing the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, based on the Husband's income of $55,000 and the Wife's imputed income of $11,400.

The court rejected the Husband's arguments regarding the Wife's income, the separation date, and the impact of his second family's expenses on his ability to pay support.

The extension for trial was granted.

The applicant mother sought an urgent, temporary order to relocate with her 10-month-old child from Thunder Bay to Manitouwadge for new employment, and for temporary sole custody or a declaration of primary caregiver.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to relocate, finding it was not in the child's best interests due to the critical stage of the child's development and the need to foster a strong paternal relationship.

The mother was declared the child's primary caregiver, but no custody order was made.

The court ordered that the father should have a regular, consistent access schedule with increasing amounts of time, including overnight access.

A mother sought custody, child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, and enforcement remedies after the father failed to participate in the proceedings and failed to pay support following separation.

The court imputed income to the father at $60,000 during periods where he had the capacity to work as a journeyman electrician and later used his Ontario Disability Support Plan income to calculate ongoing support.

Retroactive child support and section 7 expenses were awarded along with ongoing support obligations.

To secure payment of arrears and future support, the court ordered the transfer and vesting of one-half of the father’s locked-in RRSP pursuant to s. 66(4) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The father was also ordered to obtain life insurance naming the child as beneficiary to secure ongoing support.

On an interim motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent father sought permission to relocate with the parties’ two‑year‑old child from Thunder Bay to Dryden after obtaining employment as an occasional teacher.

The mother opposed the move and sought to maintain the existing shared care arrangement pending trial.

Applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and interim mobility jurisprudence, the court held that a temporary relocation requires a pressing reason and must be assessed in light of the child’s best interests.

Given the equal caregiving arrangement, the absence of a custody determination, conflicting affidavit evidence, and the likelihood of trial within six months, the court found the father failed to establish a pressing need for relocation.

The relocation request and related relief were dismissed and the status quo parenting arrangement was maintained pending trial.