Elissa H. Gamus

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to Dubai, alleging the respondent mother abducted the child to Ontario.

At a case conference, the court determined procedural steps for the upcoming motion.

The court scheduled a five-day summary trial for January 2020, denying the mother's request for a later date to accommodate witnesses from Iran, emphasizing the need for expedition in alleged child abduction cases.

The court also denied requests for pre-hearing questioning, a court-appointed expert, and interim access, noting the latter was not properly before the court.

Following urgent motions regarding a child's school placement, the successful respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct, which included filing voluminous and disproportionate materials, to be unreasonable.

The father had also made offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court awarded the father costs approaching full recovery, reduced slightly for his counsel's role in scheduling missteps, fixing the award at $22,500.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over the parenting of their young daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to San Francisco, where her extended family lived.

The father opposed the move, sought equal parenting time, and requested that no custody order be made.

The court declined to make a formal custody order, finding it would only fuel the conflict.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move was primarily for her preference and would disrupt the child's consistent and beneficial relationship with her father.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule based on the assessor's recommendations, granted the mother final decision-making on medical and religious issues, and granted the father final decision-making on educational issues.

At a trial management conference in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, child support, and related relief, the court reviewed the status of prior orders and clarified the remaining issues for trial.

The court confirmed that custody had already been determined, while issues such as access, travel restrictions, passport control, child support income determination, and a potential restraining order remained for trial.

The court addressed disclosure issues, including ordering production of the full assessment file of a psychological evaluator and requiring financial disclosure from the respondent.

The endorsement also set deadlines for service of trial records, witness summaries, and document briefs, and restricted the parties from bringing further motions before trial.