3 total
The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property but awarded her interim spousal support despite a cohabitation agreement waiver.
The applicant sought vacant possession of his property from the respondent, his common-law spouse, who opposed the motion and sought interim spousal support, arguing their cohabitation agreement was void or unenforceable.
The court found a triable issue regarding the agreement's enforceability and the respondent's prima facie entitlement to support based on need.
The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specific date and ordered the applicant to pay a lump sum towards past spousal support and ongoing monthly interim spousal support.
Unsupervised parenting time granted and pre-trial sale of matrimonial home ordered; mother's relocation request denied.
The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting time, child support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and mobility.
The mother sought supervised parenting time for the father, alleging family violence and COVID-19 concerns, and requested permission to relocate.
The father sought unsupervised parenting time and an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.
The court dismissed the mother's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of risk to the children, and ordered gradual unsupervised parenting time.
The court also ordered the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home due to financial necessity and dismissed the mother's motion to relocate due to a lack of evidence supporting the move.
Urgent motion for child care dismissed as no material change in circumstances was established.
The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole care of the parties' three-year-old child, alleging child protection concerns regarding the respondent mother.
The child had been in the applicant's care since December 2019 after a CAS worker found the respondent's home unfit.
The court found that the respondent had since rectified the home conditions and CAS had closed its file with no verified protection concerns.
Concluding there was no material change in circumstances under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion and ordered the child returned to the respondent in accordance with the existing final order.
