2 total
The mother's request to relocate the children to Nova Scotia was denied to preserve stability.
The Mother sought to relocate with the children from Ontario to Nova Scotia, citing health and financial reasons.
The Father opposed the relocation, arguing it was not in the children's best interests due to the negative impact on their relationship and stability.
The court considered factors under the Divorce Act, including the children's needs, relationships with parents and extended family, and the parents' willingness to cooperate.
The court denied the Mother's request to relocate, finding that it would destabilize the children and negatively impact their strong bond with the Father.
Decision-making responsibility was shared, with the Mother responsible for medical care and religion, and the Father for education.
The existing equal shared parenting time schedule was maintained.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding she failed to meet the statutory threshold for permanent serious impairment and lacked credibility.
The defendant brought a threshold motion following a jury trial on damages for a motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff claimed general non-pecuniary damages, loss of income, and psychological services.
The court assessed whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of the accident, as required by s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 381/03.
The court found that the plaintiff's physical injuries (whiplash) had resolved within 8 weeks and were not continuous.
The plaintiff's expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Cooke, ultimately could not attribute the plaintiff's current subjective symptoms to the accident.
The court also rejected the opinion of the plaintiff's psychological expert, Dr. Holowaty, due to her lack of objectivity, failure to report inconsistencies in the medical record, and failure to consider malingering as per DSM-5 guidelines.
The court found the plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility due to exaggerated pain behaviour and inconsistencies with reported activities.
Consequently, the court declared that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold for permanent serious impairment, dismissed the claims for health care expenses and loss of income, and assessed non-pecuniary damages at nil after applying the statutory deductible.
