David Todd Morganstein

The applicant sought a 50/50 parenting arrangement and an end to child support payments, following his relocation closer to the respondent, which was the condition for a review of the original custody order.

The respondent opposed these changes and sought a reduction in the applicant's parenting time, citing concerns about the child's well-being after visits.

The court, while acknowledging the applicant's move resolved the initial distance issue, declined to implement a 50/50 arrangement or reduce child support, citing the applicant's past conduct and the need for caution.

The court ordered both parties to facilitate daily Skype communication between the child and the non-visiting parent.

The respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

Prior to being retained by the wife, the wife's counsel had multiple discussions with the husband's counsel regarding the strategic use of confidential information related to the valuation of the wife's business interests.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court found that confidential strategic information had been imparted and that a reasonably-informed member of the public would not be satisfied that no use of this information would occur.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

The appellant appealed an order finding her in contempt for breaching a disclosure order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was a basis for the finding of breach and that the motion judge's decision to make a finding of contempt was a discretionary exercise with which the court would not interfere.

No penalty was imposed, and costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.