Glory To

The applicant father brought an interim motion to change a final order concerning child support, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

He sought a reduction in child support, alleging parental alienation, and proposed a police apprehension order for parenting time enforcement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances to justify varying the final order on an interim basis.

The court emphasized that the applicant's dissatisfaction with child support was not a material change, and his proposals for "retribution" via child support reduction and police enforcement were contrary to the children's best interests and an abuse of process.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' 8-year-old child to North Bay, which the father opposed.

The mother also sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought joint decision-making.

Following a 7-day trial, the court dismissed the mother's request to relocate the child, finding it was not in the child's best interests to move away from his father and extended family in the Kitchener-Waterloo region.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, finding the parties had a history of effective communication prior to the relocation dispute.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother for child support purposes, finding she was intentionally underemployed by choosing to be a stay-at-home parent.

The father brought a motion to change seeking sole or joint decision-making responsibility and maximum unsupervised parenting time, alleging the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse in the mother's care.

The mother brought a cross-motion to terminate the father's parenting time entirely and to remove requirements for his consent for travel and passports.

The court found no material change in circumstances to alter decision-making, as the father's abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a graduated schedule starting with supervised visits.

The court granted the mother's request to dispense with the father's consent for passports and travel.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting joint custody but allowing the respondent mother to relocate with their two children to Washington State and giving her final decision-making authority.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on the respondent's stated intention to move with or without the children, failing to maximize contact, and rejecting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation against relocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, avoided the 'double bind' trap, and made an order in the children's best interests.

The access schedule was slightly amended for 2021 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

The applicant sought joint and shared custody of the parties' two children.

The respondent sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children to Washington State to live with her new husband.

The court granted joint custody but gave final decision-making authority to the respondent.

The court permitted the respondent to relocate with the children to Washington State, finding she was the primary caregiver and the move was in the children's best interests.

The applicant was granted generous access and relieved of child support obligations to offset travel costs.

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change access arrangements made in 2001, seeking to eliminate or severely restrict the applicant father's access to their son.

The child, initially willing to attend access, began refusing visits in 2009.

The court found that both parents contributed to the deterioration of the father-child relationship through poor decision-making.

The mother was found to have been passive in encouraging access and to have subtly discouraged the relationship, while the father was found to have been rigid, critical, and insensitive to the child's preferences.

The court rejected the mother's position that the child should have unfettered discretion over access and instead imposed a structured access schedule with mandatory counselling for all parties.