Dylan Crosby

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to her primary care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld the child following a medical incident.

The father alleged the mother had substance abuse issues, but a Children's Aid Society investigation did not verify these concerns.

The court found that the father engaged in inappropriate self-help by altering the established status quo without a compelling reason.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's primary care, restored the previous parenting schedule, and permitted the mother to return the child to his original school.

The moving party brought a motion for an order to sell the parties' jointly owned, unfinished matrimonial home prior to trial, for a Voice of the Child Report, and for leave to amend her answer to claim spousal support.

The court dismissed the request for the sale of the home due to uncertainty regarding its current equity and because it currently houses the parties' child, noting that a new motion could be brought once an updated appraisal is obtained.

The court granted the requests for a Voice of the Child Report and for leave to amend the answer to claim spousal support.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the interim parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that while the applicant's email offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18, it was similar to the final result.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $1,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant father sought an interim order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating the parties' four-year-old child to Deep River, Ontario, and requesting primary care.

The mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and moved to reside with her new partner.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors, the court found that the mother was likely to succeed at trial regarding primary care and that the move was made in good faith.

The court dismissed the father's motion, permitting the interim relocation pending trial.

Following an unsuccessful defence motion for summary judgment on a discoverability issue in a motor vehicle accident action, the court addressed the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought over $50,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court found the requested fees excessive, noting duplication of work among multiple counsel and disproportionate time claimed by senior counsel who did not draft the materials.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized fairness, reasonableness, and the expectations of the parties.

Costs were reduced and fixed at a lump sum of $29,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.