Esther Lenkinski

The parties brought cross-motions for a parenting plan regarding their 17-month-old child.

The mother sought to delay overnight parenting time until March 2022, citing the child's young age and breastfeeding needs.

The father sought immediate overnights to coincide with his upcoming paternity leave.

The court found that the 'tender years' doctrine no longer applies and that breastfeeding is not a bar to overnight access.

The court ordered a progressive parenting schedule that introduced overnights during the father's paternity leave to foster a strong bond, alongside a detailed holiday schedule.

The applicant was largely successful on a motion regarding child support and financial disclosure.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by persistently refusing to provide full and frank financial disclosure, thereby unnecessarily driving up litigation costs.

The applicant also beat her offer to settle.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $70,000, characterized as child support for enforcement purposes.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $1.5 million to the respondent father based on text messages and lifestyle.

The father argued his income was $146,655.50.

The court found the financial disclosure from both parties to be inadequate and applied 'rough justice' to determine income based on the parties' sworn living expenses.

The court imputed an income of $285,000 to the father and zero income to the mother, ordering temporary spousal support of $7,201 per month and child support of $2,271 per month.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to obtain $4.1 million in life insurance was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

The respondent's motion for the return of the children to Scotland under the Hague Convention was previously dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $99,809.24 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour: the respondent filed improper reply evidence and made unfounded reports to child protection services, while the applicant removed the children from Scotland without the respondent's consent under the guise of a sham access arrangement.

Finding no bad faith or applicable offers to settle, the court declined to award full indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $40,000.

The moving party father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Scotland, alleging the responding party mother wrongfully removed them to Ontario.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence, finding that the older child was habitually resident in Canada and the mother was the focal point of the infant child's life.

The court also considered the exceptions under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, finding that while the father exercised custody rights and did not consent to the removal, there was no grave risk of harm.

The motion for the return of the children was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion regarding the schooling of the parties’ children, seeking an order that the twins attend a public school rather than a private Jewish day school preferred by the respondent father.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Relevant factors included the children’s existing familiarity with the public school, proximity to the primary residence, social connections in the neighbourhood, travel logistics, financial feasibility of private school, and potential impact on the mother’s employment at the private school.

The court found no evidence that the children’s Jewish education would suffer if they attended the public school supplemented by extracurricular religious instruction.

On balance, the court concluded that attending the public school for Grade 1 better served the twins’ best interests.