Farzana Jiwani

This decision addresses a motion brought by the mother seeking to maintain their child's current private school placement at Kingsway College School for the 2025-2026 academic year.

The father opposed the placement, proposing a public school alternative or a reduction in his financial contribution to private school expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo in temporary parenting orders absent compelling reasons, and found the father failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure or evidence to justify a change.

The court also expressed concern about the father's coercive behavior and unilateral actions.

Ultimately, the court ordered the child to remain at Kingsway with the father contributing 95% of the educational expenses and the mother 5%, consistent with their prior agreement.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

This urgent motion concerned the temporary custody of a ten-year-old child, Melody, following the death of her mother.

The mother's will appointed her parents (Melody's maternal grandparents) as guardians, but they were unable to travel to Canada due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The applicants, including a family friend (Nhan Thien Lam) and the maternal grandparents, sought a temporary order granting custody and primary residence to Lam.

The respondent father, who had a history of violence and no contact with Melody for several years, opposed the motion.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the temporary order.

The court granted temporary custody and primary residence to Lam, finding it to be in the child's best interests, without prejudice to the father's ultimate position.

This urgent motion concerns the temporary and final custody of a ten-year-old child whose mother recently passed away.

The maternal grandparents and a family friend seek temporary custody for the family friend, followed by joint temporary and final custody for the maternal grandparents, with the intention of the child relocating to Vietnam.

The biological father has had no contact with the child since 2015.

The court deemed the matter urgent, directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide services, and ordered the applicants to provide affidavit evidence of service on the father and to formally commence an Application.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a marriage contract (Maher) requiring the respondent to pay $60,000 in satisfaction of family property claims.

The respondent argued the contract was altered after signing and its terms were uncertain.

The court found the contract was validly executed and not altered.

However, the promise of '150 square metres of land in Canada' was void for uncertainty.

The promises of 14 gold coins and travel to Makka were sufficiently certain and valued at $4,606 and $11,240 respectively.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,846.