Melissa Saumur

Family law trial following a 21-year marriage in which the applicant sought divorce, sole decision-making responsibility in consultation with the respondent, a shared parenting schedule, imputed income for the respondent, equalization, and post-separation adjustments.

The respondent, who was self-represented, sought primary residence of the children, table child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, an equal alternating-week parenting schedule, retroactive child and spousal support based on imputed incomes for both parties, an equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant including a negative inference for undisclosed jewellery, and post-separation adjustments for carrying costs on jointly owned properties.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the appointment of an assessor and costs of the assessment pursuant to section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parties are parents of a nine-year-old child with diagnosed ADHD and Adjustment Disorder.

The applicant argued that a section 30 assessment was necessary because the prior Office of the Children's Lawyer report did not include direct communication with the child's psychiatrist.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the OCL report was comprehensive and that subjecting the child to another assessment would not be in the child's best interests.

The court denied the motion, finding that the OCL report adequately addressed the child's clinical needs and that the applicant's true objective appeared to be obtaining a report favourable to her position.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties’ child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, seeking to vary a prior Quebec order granting the mother custody.

Evidence showed the child had lived with the father in Ontario since 2011 after significant instability in the mother’s household, including substance use, frequent moves, exposure to domestic violence, and concerns raised by Quebec child protection authorities.

The child’s academic performance, stability, and wellbeing improved substantially after moving to the father’s care, supported by school evidence and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending custody to the father.

Although the mother demonstrated recent improvement and maintained a positive relationship with the child, the court found that the child’s best interests favoured maintaining the stable environment established with the father.

Sole custody was granted to the father with extensive access to the mother and various counselling and behavioural conditions imposed on both parents.