Efua Cobbina

This decision resolves a parenting dispute between Mavis Amanquah and Gbenga Bumni Oluwamuyide, addressing decision-making responsibility, primary residence, parenting schedule, travel and documentation for the children, life insurance to secure child support, and retroactive child support and s.7 expenses.

The court grants the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, sets a detailed parenting schedule, and orders the father to pay retroactive support and maintain life insurance for the children.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding the validity of a marriage contract and denying relief for alleged physical injury and loss of income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to determine the contract's validity on motion, given the appellant's failure to read it and lack of material conflicts in evidence.

The court also upheld the denial of relief for injury, noting no spousal support claim was made and insufficient evidence.

The appellant's request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's discretion on costs, including those for conferences where the appellant was unprepared.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant (mother) for temporary decision-making responsibility and child support.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $5,763.

The court considered two offers to settle made by the mother.

The first offer, which sought final resolution, was deemed not to attract the enhanced costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it extended beyond the scope of the temporary motion.

The second offer, made one day before the motion hearing to an unrepresented litigant, also did not attract the enhanced costs consequences, as the court exercised its discretion under subrule 18(14) to "order otherwise," finding that the timing of service was unreasonable and unjust, particularly given the respondent's self-represented status.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $4,400, payable by the father at $250 per month, considering the father's unreasonable positions during the motion and his ability to pay.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract, arguing it was invalid due to insufficient disclosure, unconscionability, and duress.

The respondent sought a declaration that the contract was valid and enforceable.

The court found no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims of discrepancies in the contract or duress, attributing alleged issues to photocopying errors.

The court emphasized the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence by not reading the contract and found no exploitation of unequal bargaining power.

The marriage contract was declared valid and enforceable, and the applicant's motion was dismissed, while the respondent's cross-motion was granted.

The applicant sought to vary a 2015 final order concerning parenting time, holiday sharing, decision-making for extracurricular activities, and child support.

The respondent also sought changes to parenting and holiday schedules.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age and increased parental conflict.

A new week-about parenting schedule was ordered with a specific carve-out for the applicant, and a comprehensive holiday schedule largely proposed by the respondent was adopted.

The applicant was granted final decision-making authority for extracurricular activities, with limitations, and the respondent was ordered to contribute to past and future special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding income disparity, ordering prospective set-off child support from the respondent, but denied retroactive child support, considering the D.B.S. factors and the initial income parity.

The Mother brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order and a stay of that order, which the Father opposed.

The original costs order related to the Father's motion to enforce court-ordered parenting time.

The court applied the principles for granting leave to appeal a costs order, requiring either a conflicting decision or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order coupled with a matter of public importance.

The court found no error in principle by the original judge, noting that the Mother's arguments largely re-argued points already decided and that no issue of public importance was raised.

Consequently, the Mother's motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of the costs order was denied.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a prior court order for the applicant to sell her interest in a jointly owned property and to dispense with her consent for title transfer, due to the applicant's non-compliance with previous orders, including child support arrears.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment to obtain a forensic report to challenge the prior order, alleging misrepresentation or fraud.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of court orders and the applicant's history of non-compliance.

The respondent's motion was granted, ordering the property transfer and awarding costs to the respondent.

The applicant mother sought to enforce an interim order for the respondent father to continue paying post-secondary tuition and living expenses for their two adult daughters, who are pursuing second and third degrees in the UK.

The father cross-moved to vary the order, seeking equal apportionment of expenses and further information regarding the daughters' financial contributions.

The court found a material change in the father's income due to currency devaluation and, on an interim basis, allocated 2018-2019 tuition and rent expenses equally between the parents.

The court emphasized the lack of information regarding the daughters' means and ordered the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure from the daughters to enable a proper Section 7 analysis.

The applicant mother sought costs following her success on a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, and support.

The father, residing in Pakistan, had failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and extensions.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing close to full recovery for both the wasted attendance at a case conference and the successful motion to strike.