Ms. Lourdes Geraldo

The parties engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their 6-year-old son following their separation.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father initially sought joint custody but amended his claim to sole custody at trial.

A section 30 assessment recommended a parallel parenting regime, but the court rejected this due to the entrenched conflict and inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother, finding she was better positioned to provide a stable environment and multidimensional guidance, and was more likely to foster the child's relationship with the father.

The father was granted a specified access schedule.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the child regarding alleged physical discipline in the father's home, finding them inadmissible for the truth of their contents due to reliability concerns.

The father was ordered to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines.

The applicant father sought to prevent the respondent mother from relocating to the Netherlands with their two young children.

The mother argued she could not find suitable employment in the Hamilton area and had a job offer and family support in the Netherlands.

The court applied the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz, focusing on the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The court found that both parents were highly involved and capable, and that moving the children to the Netherlands would drastically reduce their contact with the father, which was not in their best interests.

The court denied the move to the Netherlands but permitted the mother to seek employment elsewhere in Ontario or Canada, excluding New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

The court also made orders for joint custody, access, child support, and spousal support.