Deborah Herriot-Howes

The mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Markham to Orillia to pursue employment, enrolling the child in a new school without notifying the father.

The father brought an urgent motion to have the child returned to Markham and for primary residence, while the mother cross-moved to permit the relocation.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors for interim mobility, the court found the mother failed to demonstrate that disrupting the status quo before trial was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered the child to resume school in Markham, with primary care remaining with the mother only if she returned to Markham; otherwise, primary care would transfer to the father.

Following the dismissal of the appellant mother's stay motion in a child protection proceeding, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the appellant's unreasonable behaviour, including her delay in perfecting the appeal and her failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

Applying the principles from Boucher and the factors in Family Law Rule 24(11), the court fixed the respondent's costs at $16,500 plus HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.