C. Richard Buck

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and primary residency of the parties' surviving child, and to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with the child from Waterloo to Bowmanville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation.

The court found that the parties' Revised Parenting Plan, which removed geographic restrictions on the mother's residence, remained in effect.

The court permitted the mother to relocate with the child to Bowmanville, maintaining the joint custody arrangement and the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The father's requests for sole custody, a police enforcement clause, and a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act were dismissed.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled on costs following a motion where the respondent largely succeeded.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent's offers realistic and the applicant's unreasonable.

Despite the applicant's negative net worth, the court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs, allowing this amount to be offset against future spousal support payments, effectively terminating the respondent's spousal support obligations.

Following reasons for judgment resolving property and child support disputes between former partners, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had failed in his claim for a beneficial interest in the respondent’s property but succeeded in obtaining reimbursement for child support overpayments and arrears owed by the respondent.

The respondent had successfully defended the property claim but failed in her child support claim.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules, the court found that success was divided and that none of the applicant’s offers to settle triggered automatic cost consequences.

Given the roughly equivalent financial outcomes on the competing issues and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court concluded that neither party was more successful overall.

The parties, who were never married, separated and entered into a separation agreement.

The applicant transferred his interest in their jointly owned home to the respondent.

The agreement stated that the payment of any equalization would not be determined until a future date.

The applicant later claimed an interest in the home based on the agreement, constructive trust, and resulting trust.

The court dismissed the property claims, finding the agreement provision was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' and the trust claims were precluded by the agreement and the facts.

The court also determined retroactive and ongoing child support obligations based on changes in the children's living arrangements, including a shared custody arrangement for one child.