3 total
Father's cross-motion for child's relocation to Kitchener granted based on prior agreement and child's preference.
The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' 12-year-old child continue to reside primarily with her in Etobicoke and attend his current school.
The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Kitchener to live with him and attend a new school, relying on a prior agreement between the parties.
The court found that the mother had previously consented to the relocation and school change before unilaterally withdrawing her consent.
Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, and considering the Voice of the Child Report which indicated the child's preference to move, the court granted the father's cross-motion and ordered the child to relocate to Kitchener.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the successful applicant, rejecting allegations of bad faith and finding the claimed hours excessive.
The respondent brought a motion for release of the applicant's medical records.
The applicant was successful in opposing the motion.
The applicant sought costs on a substantial recovery basis in the amount of $9,253.27, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith.
The court awarded costs on a partial recovery basis of $2,500.00, finding that while the applicant was the successful party, the respondent's conduct did not constitute bad faith.
The court also found the applicant's claimed hours and administrative costs to be excessive and disproportionate to the limited issue before the court.
Costs were ordered to be paid in two instalments.
The court dismissed a father's motion for full production of the mother's medical records, finding them privileged.
The respondent brought a motion under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules seeking production of third-party medical records from two physicians treating the applicant.
The respondent claimed the records were necessary to support his custody claim, alleging the applicant's medical conditions and addictions posed a risk to the child.
The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the request constituted a fishing expedition and violated her privacy rights.
The court applied the Wigmore test for case-by-case privilege and found that the respondent had not met the threshold for production of the physician's complete medical file, as detailed medical reports had already been provided addressing the respondent's specific concerns.
