Jacqueline Iafrate

The Applicant (Father) brought two motions seeking primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, or alternative parenting arrangements, and a declaration that the Respondent (Mother) breached a prior order, seeking to strike her pleadings.

The Respondent (Mother) brought a cross-motion to terminate reunification counselling with Accendus Group.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motions, finding his evidence unreliable and that a drastic change in parenting arrangements was not in the children's best interests.

The court also found the Respondent did not breach the prior order, as Accendus Group had misconceived its role as evaluative rather than therapeutic.

The Respondent's motion to terminate Accendus Group's involvement was granted.

The court provided directions for the payment of Accendus Group's invoices, holding the Applicant liable for costs related to Accendus Group's affidavit sworn in his support.

This trial decision addresses a mother's application to relocate with her child from Ontario to Portugal, along with issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The court denied the relocation request, finding it not in the child's best interests due to the mother's failure to provide proper notice, the lack of a well-defined plan, and concerns regarding the mother's partner's legal issues and financial stability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while establishing a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and ongoing support.

The mother's request for a restraining order was denied.

This trial decision addresses a divorce, custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization for a couple with two daughters (16 and 14) after 13.5 years of marriage and 4.5 years of separation marked by high conflict.

The court granted a divorce, ordered no custody for the 16-year-old (SHV) respecting her wishes but mandated school stability, and joint custody for the 14-year-old (CHV) with primary residence with the mother and weekend access for the father, including tie-breaking authority for education (mother) and non-emergency healthcare (father).

Child support was set at $1777/month plus 70% of Section 7 expenses.

Spousal support of $844/month was awarded indefinitely to the mother on compensatory grounds.

Retroactive support was denied due to the mother's incomplete financial disclosure and the father's post-separation payments.

Property equalization resulted in a payment owing from the mother to the father, which the father waived to offset any retroactive spousal support claim.

Following a family trial, the court addressed access to the youngest child, retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, occupation rent, equalization, section 7 expenses, and divorce.

The court held that the existing consent access order would remain in place because no material change in circumstances had been shown.

Applying the governing framework for retroactive child support, the court ordered support retroactive for three years before the application date, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage, and fixed ongoing child support.

The court granted ongoing compensatory spousal support from May 2012 but declined retroactive spousal support before that date, dismissed the occupation rent claim, resolved net family property issues including exclusion of gifted foreign property, and ordered payment of specified section 7 expenses.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her two daughters from Ontario to Corner Brook, Newfoundland.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about maintaining his relationship with the children and the impact on his mental health.

The court granted the relocation, finding that the mother's choice of venue was reasonable and that there were ample opportunities for the father to maintain a relationship with the children despite the geographic distance.

The judgment addresses issues of custody, access, and mobility in the context of parental separation.