Corrine M. van der Burg

The respondent brought a motion to suspend his interim spousal support obligations, claiming a material change in circumstances due to his retirement and a significant reduction in income.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for an increase in support and an advance from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure lacking credibility and dismissed his motion to suspend support.

The court ordered that both parties receive $100,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

In this family law matter, the Applicant mother sought a psychological/developmental assessment for the two children, while the Respondent father sought expanded parenting time and restrictions on changes to the children's residence or school.

The court dismissed both motions.

The mother's request for an assessment was denied as it was deemed an indirect attempt to circumvent a prior court order for family reintegration therapy, which had not occurred due to the mother's actions.

The father's request for expanded parenting time was denied as it was not considered in the children's best interests to experiment with new arrangements so close to the upcoming trial, and the evidence regarding the children's wishes was conflicting and untested.

The court emphasized maintaining the status quo until trial.

The Applicant Father and Respondent Mother brought competing motions for interim custody and access.

The Father sought sole custody and supervised access for the Mother at a supervised access facility, along with a restraining order and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Mother sought interim joint custody, exclusive possession (which became moot due to a fire), and increased supervised access transitioning to equal parenting time.

The court also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of MVA medical reports, surreptitiously recorded video/audio, and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records.

The court granted interim joint custody, finding no evidence that the parties could not agree on child-related decisions prior to separation, and noting the Father's unilateral decisions regarding residence and daycare.

The Mother was granted increased supervised access (Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, 10 am to 7 pm), supervised by Millie Fogliano or Jane Morrow, with conditions regarding alcohol/marijuana consumption and driving.

A mutual restraining order was issued, and a non-removal order.

The court emphasized the need for a review in 6 months due to ongoing conflict and the Mother's need to demonstrate stability.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of child care expenses for services provided by the maternal grandmother.

The father opposed paying for care provided by a family member and sought increased access.

The court applied the principles from McLaughlin, finding that because the grandmother had foregone employment to care for the children and her dominant activity during the mother's working hours was child care, she was entitled to remuneration.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the grandmother's discounted weekly rate.

The father's request for increased access was dismissed as a recent order already provided alternate weekend overnight access.