4 total
The Superior Court dismissed a father's appeals of three temporary family law orders regarding parenting time and third-party records disclosure.
The appellant, Mr. Rodriguez, appealed three temporary orders from the Ontario Court of Justice concerning child protection records disclosure and parenting time.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed all three appeals, affirming the lower court's decisions.
The court applied a deferential standard of review for temporary orders, emphasizing that such orders should only be interfered with if clearly wrong or exceeding the reasonable ambit of solutions.
The court also awarded costs against the appellant due to the lack of merit and the unreasonable litigation behaviour.
The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property but awarded her interim spousal support despite a cohabitation agreement waiver.
The applicant sought vacant possession of his property from the respondent, his common-law spouse, who opposed the motion and sought interim spousal support, arguing their cohabitation agreement was void or unenforceable.
The court found a triable issue regarding the agreement's enforceability and the respondent's prima facie entitlement to support based on need.
The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specific date and ordered the applicant to pay a lump sum towards past spousal support and ongoing monthly interim spousal support.
A child access holder under the CYFSA may seek an openness order with any person with whom they have a beneficial relationship.
The court ruled that a child who is an access holder under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, is not limited to seeking an openness order only with persons explicitly named in an existing access order.
Instead, such a child may seek openness with any person with whom they have a beneficial and meaningful relationship, provided it is in the child's best interests.
This interpretation aligns with the plain language and purposeful approach of the CYFSA, as well as Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Office of the Children's Lawyer's argument on jurisdiction for inter-sibling openness was affirmed.
Mother granted exclusive possession of matrimonial home pretrial; father's motion for immediate sale dismissed.
The applicant mother and respondent father separated, and the mother remained in the jointly owned matrimonial home with their two children.
The mother brought a motion for temporary exclusive possession of the home, while the father brought a cross-motion for the immediate sale of the home and occupation rent.
The court granted the mother's motion for exclusive possession, finding it was in the best interests of the children and that an immediate sale would prejudice the mother's claims at trial.
The father's motion for sale and occupation rent was dismissed, as the carrying costs paid by the mother roughly equalled the requested rent.
