2 total
The court granted the mother's interim motion to relocate with the children to Thunder Bay for a new employment opportunity.
The applicant mother sought to relocate with the children from Essex County to Thunder Bay for a new job opportunity, which would significantly improve her financial situation and the children's lives.
The respondent father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in Essex County.
The court, applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's job loss.
It determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, considering the mother's financial stability, the lack of alternative employment, and the proposed access schedule which maintained the father's overnight access.
The applicant's motion was allowed, and the respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.
Separation agreement voided by reconciliation except for specific property transfers intended to be final.
The parties separated, executed a separation agreement dividing their property, and later reconciled.
The trial judge found they reconciled in February 1998 and that the property division in the separation agreement survived the reconciliation, resulting in no equalization payment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the reconciliation date but found the trial judge erred in concluding the entire property division survived.
The Court held that while the specific transfer of the matrimonial home was intended to be final, the rest of the agreement was voided by the reconciliation.
The appeal was allowed, and an equalization payment was ordered based on a modified Net Family Property Statement.
