Courtney Wile

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to prevent his daughter from changing elementary schools to a Catholic school, and the associated costs order.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making authority, sought to enroll their daughter in the local Catholic school due to bullying at the current school and the academic superiority of the new school.

The motion judge found the mother was committed to raising the daughter in the Jewish faith and had secured exemptions from religious instruction at the Catholic school, thus finding no breach of the prior order for the daughter to be raised in the Jewish faith.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's decision or costs award, dismissing the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to Dubai, alleging the respondent mother abducted the child to Ontario.

At a case conference, the court determined procedural steps for the upcoming motion.

The court scheduled a five-day summary trial for January 2020, denying the mother's request for a later date to accommodate witnesses from Iran, emphasizing the need for expedition in alleged child abduction cases.

The court also denied requests for pre-hearing questioning, a court-appointed expert, and interim access, noting the latter was not properly before the court.

The applicant sought an urgent order to relocate with the parties' one-year-old daughter, Freya, from Toronto to Victoria, B.C., citing a new job opportunity and psychological isolation in Toronto.

The respondent opposed the motion, emphasizing the importance of the child's attachment to both parents.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the proposed move was not in the child's best interests, as it would drastically reduce contact with the father during a critical developmental stage and disrupt the child's daily routine.

Maria Anna Koundouros brought a motion to strike the claim of her former mother-in-law, Stavroulla Koundouros, who sought repayment of $1,598,000 advanced to Maria and her son during their marriage.

Maria argued that a promissory note for the funds was solely between Stavroulla and her son, Nicolaos, and therefore no cause of action existed against her.

The court dismissed Maria's motion, finding that Stavroulla's claim, which included allegations of unjust enrichment and trust claims based on joint benefit and Maria's access to funds, disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court emphasized that the Family Law Rules, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, primarily govern such family disputes and that the promissory note was not dispositive at this early stage.