Erin Burns

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the two children in Toronto, along with child support and communication limits.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary residence in London, and child support.

Both parties also sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain a divorce.

The court found that the mother had experienced family violence from the father, which impacted her ability to communicate directly.

Considering the children's best interests, including their stability in Toronto and the mother's primary caregiver role, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father was granted defined parenting time, and specific communication protocols were ordered.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income, and spousal support was terminated as per the mother's request.

A divorce order was also issued.

During a family law trial involving decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the self-represented applicant mother testified about family violence, including sexual assault, perpetrated by the respondent father.

The court raised concerns about the applicant having to cross-examine the respondent and adjourned the matter to consider appointing amicus curiae to assist with the cross-examination, inviting submissions from the parties, the Attorney General for Ontario, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The parties brought cross-motions for an interim order regarding which school their four-year-old daughter would attend for junior kindergarten.

The mother, a teacher at Assumption Catholic Elementary School, sought to enroll the child there.

The father sought to enroll the child at St. David Catholic Elementary School, located in his catchment area.

The court ordered the child to attend the mother's choice of school, finding it in the child's best interests due to the avoidance of bussing, the mother's ability to respond to medical emergencies, and her availability to attend school events.

Following two motions regarding the child's residence where the respondent father was substantially successful, the father sought costs of $10,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reserved.

The underlying dispute involved the mother overholding the child due to allegations that the father distributed intimate images of her online without consent.

The court held that if the father is proven to be the perpetrator at trial, his behaviour could be considered unreasonable and affect his entitlement to costs.

Therefore, the court reserved the determination of costs to the trial judge when a full evidentiary record will be available.

The applicant brought a motion seeking exclusive possession and the sale of the matrimonial home, arguing that the minutes of settlement executed by the parties were invalid due to duress and breached by the respondent's late payment.

The court found no evidence of duress and determined that the delay in payment was caused by the applicant's own undisclosed CRA lien.

The court upheld the minutes of settlement as a valid and enforceable contract, ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the agreed amount less the CRA lien payout and costs, and dismissed the applicant's motion.

The applicant father opposed the respondent mother's request to relocate with their 18-month-old child from Sarnia, Ontario, to Alberta.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, denied the mother's mobility application.

The decision emphasized the child's young age and the need for frequent, regular contact with both parents to foster a strong bond, outweighing the benefits to the mother of relocating to be closer to her family and career opportunities, especially given concerns about her mental health treatment plan in Alberta.

The applicant initiated garnishment proceedings to enforce spousal support arrears and ongoing payments based on a Divorce Order.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, arguing the support quantum varied annually per the order and that garnishment caused hardship.

The court found both parties acted precipitously.

It ruled that the respondent should not have unilaterally reduced support but also that garnishment was not available to the applicant because the support order was filed with the Family Responsibility Office, which has exclusive enforcement jurisdiction unless withdrawn.

The court also clarified the income calculation for support purposes and ordered the preparation and filing of appropriate Support Deduction Orders.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and primary residence of the child, Cylus, along with child support and s.7 expenses.

The respondent father also sought joint custody with primary residence, child support, and s.7 expenses.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father, considering the stability he provided and the mother's military career requiring frequent moves.

The court also addressed child support and s.7 expenses, ordering the mother to pay support and share expenses, with adjustments for past travel costs.