Danielle Russell

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to permit him to relocate the residence of the two children from Kingston to Kitchener.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement in Kingston.

The father sought to move due to a change in employment and to be closer to family.

Applying the relocation provisions of the amended Divorce Act, the court found that the father did not meet the burden of proving the relocation was in the best interests of the children, as it would significantly disrupt their lives and drastically decrease their time with the respondent mother.

The motion to relocate was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in Kingston.

The respondent sought to vary a 2013 spousal support order, requesting a reduction to zero due to alleged unemployment and under-employment.

The applicant opposed, seeking continuation of the existing order based on income imputation.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and under-employed, imputing income at his previous earning capacity of $130,000 per year.

The applicant's income was maintained at $20,000 per year.

The motion to change was granted only to the extent of reinstating spousal support at $3,000 per month plus medical plan costs, effective July 1, 2017, and ordering a replacement life insurance policy.

The applicant's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed after a six-day family law trial.

The respondent sought costs, relying on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that her offer to settle, which proposed paying the applicant $10,000 for dismissal of all claims without costs, was more favourable than the judgment.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of costs, the court awarded the respondent $38,652.45 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, covering the period from the date of her offer.

The applicant's arguments regarding his financial position and health were not found to be a strong connection to the costs of the failed application.

The applicant sought a finding of unjust enrichment, a constructive trust, and partition and sale, or a monetary award, relating to real property in the respondent's name.

The parties were in a cohabiting relationship from 2008 to 2014.

The applicant claimed he provided labour to build the house with the expectation of joint ownership, while the respondent asserted a fee-for-services agreement ($10/hour plus living expenses).

The court found a valid contract for services, negating the "absence of juristic reason" element of unjust enrichment.

Furthermore, the court found no enrichment of the respondent, as she paid more for the property than its market value, and no corresponding deprivation of the applicant, whose earnings remained consistent with his historical income.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the parties' five-year-old child from Kingston to Windsor following the mother's medical release from the military and her engagement to a new partner.

The respondent father opposed the move, proposing the child remain in Kingston where the parties had previously shared custody.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that both parents were excellent and capable, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to relocate to Windsor with the mother.

The court emphasized the child's close bond with her half-brother in Windsor and the mother's long-term stability compared to the father's uncertain military posting future.