Tracy Majewski

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2019 final consent order regarding parenting of their 8-year-old child.

The respondent father had withheld in-person parenting time from the mother for three years and was previously found in contempt.

The child exhibited severe behavioural issues and defiance toward the mother but not the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a hybrid parenting plan, requiring immediate reunification therapy paid for by the father, 50/50 parenting time pending a review, and for the court to remain seized of the matter for one year to ensure compliance and monitor the child's best interests.

The applicant sought an order to relocate with the children from Oakville to Sarnia and to vary the existing parenting time schedule.

She also requested retroactive and ongoing child support, including Section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought to vary the parenting time schedule regardless of the relocation outcome.

The court denied the applicant's proposed relocation, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the significant risk it posed to their relationships with the respondent and their half-sister, exacerbated by the applicant's diminished view of the respondent's parental role.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request to vary the Final Order, determining that no material change in circumstances had been proven.

The applicant's claims for child support and life insurance were also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The parties separated when their child was six months old.

The mother relocated to Guelph with the child, while the father remained in Brampton.

At trial, the parties agreed the mother would have sole decision-making responsibility, leaving the father's parenting schedule and his request for a reduction in child support due to high access costs as the remaining issues.

The court considered the child's learning difficulties, the father's commute, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered alternating weekend parenting time for the father from Friday after school to Sunday evening, plus a mid-week community visit in Guelph.

The father's request for a reduction in child support was dismissed.

The parties, married for less than two years, engaged in high-conflict litigation concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and decision-making authority for the children, while maintaining equal shared parenting time.

The respondent's claims for constructive trust, spousal support, and child support were dismissed.

An unequalization payment was ordered from the applicant to the respondent, reflecting the short marriage and pre-marital acquisition of the primary asset.

The court imputed income to the unemployed respondent for child support purposes.

This case addresses a dispute between separated parents over the choice of school for their two daughters.

The applicant father sought to keep the children in their current school, St. Elizabeth Seton, which they had attended since Junior Kindergarten.

The respondent mother wished to transfer them to St. Edmund, a school closer to her parents' home, citing a shorter commute and higher Fraser Institute rankings.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle, found no compelling reason to change schools.

It prioritized the children's established friendships, stable environment, and relationship with the father over the mother's preferences and the academic rankings.

The court also critiqued the reliance on Fraser Institute rankings without expert evidence and noted the diminished weight of the OCL report due to lack of cross-examination.

The father's position was upheld, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant mother sought to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, including sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought to expand his unsupervised access and remove conditions from an existing temporary order.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed warranting implementation of supervised access and restricted telephone contact recommendations, but denied the mother's request for sole custody and other non-access relief.

The father's motion for expanded unsupervised access was also denied.