D. Cox

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child support for four children based on the respondent father's previously estimated income of $120,000.

The father, who was in default of his financial disclosure obligations, argued support should be based on his current Employment Insurance income of $33,800.

The court found it inequitable to impose support based on the estimated income given the evidence of EI receipt, and ordered temporary child support based on the $33,800 income on a without prejudice basis, while ordering the father to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

The applicant was successful on a motion to relocate with the parties' children and sought costs of $7,000.00.

The respondent argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $1,500.00, citing the financial impact on his ability to exercise parenting time.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive, disallowed fees for 'advising counsel', and reduced the preparation time.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,144.00 plus HST.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate with the parties' two children from Thunder Bay to Ottawa, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that the children expressed a clear preference to move with her.

The court granted the temporary relocation order, adjusted the father's parenting time and child support, but dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making responsibility.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.