Dawn Myrtle Melville

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' 16-month-old child, including overnights and travel to his home in Detroit, Michigan.

The applicant mother opposed the expansion, arguing it would disrupt the child's strict breastfeeding and sleep routine.

The court found that while routine and breastfeeding are important, maximizing the father's parenting time to foster a strong bond and expose the child to his African American heritage was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, including overnights and holiday schedules.

This decision concerns a costs order following a motion where the parties reached a consent order on all issues except costs.

The respondent father sought full indemnification costs, alleging the applicant mother's conduct was vexatious and in bad faith due to her non-acquiescence to access requests based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother argued that the allegations were untested and that a last-minute settlement offer should not result in a costs award.

The court found that it could not make findings of bad faith without tested evidence and that awarding costs after a last-minute amended offer acceptance would undermine settlement negotiations.

Consequently, the costs of the resolved motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant father brought an urgent interim motion to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Windsor to Edmonton.

The mother sought to move to pursue a policing career and live with her new partner.

Applying the test for interim mobility, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding the child's best interests and no compelling circumstances to justify an immediate move, particularly given the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered the child to remain in Essex County pending an expedited trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking expanded and unsupervised access to his child.

The respondent mother sought a more limited expansion of access and a change to child support obligations.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2009 order, as the child had grown from a toddler to nine years old with significantly changed developmental needs.

The court rejected both parties' proposed access arrangements, finding that the father's proposal was too expansive given the child's current comfort level, while the mother's proposal perpetuated an arrangement that had not fostered the father-child relationship as expected.

The court implemented a graduated access schedule with decreasing supervision over a six-month period, designed to allow the child to develop a more secure relationship with his father while respecting the child's current anxieties and the father's demonstrated behavioral concerns during access.

The respondent husband brought a motion to strike the applicant wife's claim for equalization of net family properties, arguing her prior assignment in bankruptcy disentitled her from making the claim.

He also sought security for costs.

The wife produced evidence that her Trustee in Bankruptcy had returned the right to sue for equalization to her after her discharge.

The court found this distinguished her case from the authorities relied upon by the husband and concluded he had not shown she had no reasonable claim in law.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and the request for security for costs was denied without prejudice due to an insufficient record.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her application for child support under the Divorce Act.

The hearing judge had dismissed the application on the basis that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction because there was a prior child support order made under the Family Law Act in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an application for corollary relief under the Divorce Act is a stand-alone application that supersedes a prior provincial order, and the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear it.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to vary child support and custody orders previously made in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent father did not appear.

The court dismissed the motion and the underlying application, holding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to vary a final order made by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant was directed to seek relief in the provincial court.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the validity of a release she executed in October 2000 concerning her mother's estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant intended to release the estate and that the estate trustee engaged in no improper or unlawful purpose.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

On a family law appeal, the appellant challenged the inclusion of sick leave credits in net family property, the retirement age used for pension valuation, a paragraph of the judgment characterized as a support order triggered by default in payment, and the trial costs order.

The court held that the evidentiary record supported the trial judge’s treatment of the sick leave credits and pension valuation, and that the impugned paragraph was authorized on consent and properly viewed as support rather than conversion of a property order.

The court declined to interfere with the costs ruling, including the application of Rule 49.

The appeal was dismissed subject only to a consent variation reducing the equalization payment.