Erin Chaiton-Murray

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her 13-year-old son, who was withheld by the applicant father following the Christmas holidays in breach of a 2015 consent order.

The father brought a cross-motion to vary the order, alleging the child was emotionally abused by the mother and her partner.

The court found the father's allegations lacked credibility and particulars, and that he had engaged in inappropriate self-help tactics.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother, directed that the father's access be supervised, and adjourned the father's cross-motion pending an assessment.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to fulfill two undertakings given during questioning, specifically requesting marked-up statements to prove her actual expenses from a three-year-old financial statement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's request required the responding party to create a new document not covered by the original undertaking.

The court also held that the request was not proportional to the issues at trial, as need is only one factor in determining spousal support under the Divorce Act.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to move with the parties' four-year-old child from Toronto to Belleville.

The mother sought the move due to the high cost of housing in Toronto and her desire to provide the child with a larger home and his own bedroom.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it would negatively impact his access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's willingness to facilitate access by sharing the driving.

The court also ordered the father to pay arrears for section 7 expenses and imputed his income at $110,000 for child support purposes.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance for litigation expenses following a long marriage and separation.

The respondent opposed entitlement, argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed, and sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s cohabiting partner while also requesting his own advance for costs.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to support arising from the traditional marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Due to the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure necessary for an expert income report, the court accepted an interim income figure including an added-back amount for business expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to account for contributions from the applicant’s cohabiting partner, while both parties’ requests for advance costs were dismissed and the disclosure request adjourned.

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.