Cynthia L. Mackenzie

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders regarding their two youngest children.

The applicant mother sought primary care of the youngest child with conditions on the respondent father's parenting time, citing concerns about his admitted history of sexual addiction and inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a week-about basis.

The court granted the applicant primary care of the youngest child, finding it consistent with the status quo and the child's best interests.

The court expanded the respondent's parenting time but imposed conditions prohibiting him from keeping pornographic material where the child may be and from discussing his mental health or sexual behaviour with the child.

Parenting time for the older child was ordered to be in accordance with his wishes.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which the applicant worked as a bookkeeper for the respondent's construction business.

The court determined the value of the business at separation, rejecting the applicant's expert's inclusion of 'secured customer leads' as property under the Family Law Act.

The court also addressed retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support, imputing income to the respondent based on a three-year pattern and awarding the applicant high-range spousal support of $3,300 monthly due to strong compensatory and needs-based claims.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over all matters in their family law case, including divorce, equalization, and support.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion to stay the divorce claim, arguing that he had already commenced a divorce proceeding in Poland and that Poland was the more appropriate forum.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court held that the husband failed to show that Poland was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the parties resided in Ontario throughout their marriage, the property issues were already conceded to Ontario, and a Polish divorce could prejudice the wife's spousal support claims.

The husband's motion was dismissed and the wife's motion was granted.

On competing interim motions in a family proceeding, the applicant sought to eliminate a prior order requiring supervised access with the parties’ three children, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred after he returned to work and obtained medical clearance following treatment for depression.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought continuation of the supervised access regime established by an earlier interim order.

The court held that variation of an interim custody or access order requires compelling evidence of changed circumstances demonstrating that the current arrangement is not in the children’s best interests.

The court found insufficient time had passed since the earlier order to conclude that the applicant’s mental health had stabilized in the long term.

Supervised access therefore continued, subject to limited relaxations in certain public settings, and interim child support was ordered pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.