D. Singh

The applicant father sought to vary a final consent order that provided for shared custody of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody, child support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the shared parenting arrangement had become unworkable and the children consistently expressed a desire to live with the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father with a specified access schedule for the mother.

The father was granted leave to amend his pleadings at trial.

The court ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support and partial retroactive child support, but denied the father's claim for retroactive s. 7 expenses due to lack of notice and his tactical use of an expert report.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing that a similar proceeding was already underway in British Columbia.

The parties had lived in British Columbia before separating, after which the mother moved to Ontario with their child.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction over custody under the Children's Law Reform Act, it should decline to exercise it based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The property claims were dismissed under the Family Law Act, and the custody and support claims were stayed pending the outcome of the British Columbia proceeding.

The plaintiff, who sued his former employer FedEx for constructive dismissal and retaliatory discharge, moved for leave to further amend his statement of claim or, alternatively, to file a Reply.

The proposed amendments sought to add allegations regarding FedEx's motives for allegedly ignoring his complaints about customs irregularities, claiming the company was distracted by more serious illegal activities.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were irrelevant to the core issues of the dismissal claim, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and inappropriately raised new issues that could not be addressed by further defence pleadings.