Fhara Arminda Pottinger

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' 12-year-old son from Thunder Bay to Sudbury.

The parties had shared equal parenting time since separation.

The mother argued the move would provide better access to professionals for the child's ADHD, a new peer group to escape bullying, and closer proximity to her new partner's children.

The father opposed the move, emphasizing the child's need for stability, his established medical team, and his strong relationships with extended family in Thunder Bay.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, including the specific relocation factors.

The court found that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the significant negative impact on the child's relationships and the child's expressed preference to remain in Thunder Bay.

The application to relocate was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a temporary order permitting relocation of the child from Thunder Bay to Kenora, Ontario.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent, as the primary care parent with sole decision-making authority, met the burden of proof under section 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act.

The court authorized the relocation, finding it was in the child's best interests based on the respondent's improved economic circumstances, the child's young age and adaptability, the manageable distance between the two locations, and the respondent's willingness to facilitate the applicant's parenting time.

The court suspended child support obligations pending further agreement or court order and awarded costs to the respondent.

This decision addresses interim parenting time and school attendance for two children in a high-conflict family law matter.

The court maintains a week on/week off shared parenting schedule, with the caveat that if the mother fails to ensure the children’s school attendance, the father will have primary care during the school week.

The court declines to order a change of school or police enforcement at this stage, and orders the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) to ascertain the children’s views and preferences.

The applicants sought the court's opinion on the validity of a handwritten, improperly executed codicil and whether the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Foundation was the residuary beneficiary.

The court found the codicil valid under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, as it clearly expressed the testator's testamentary intentions.

Applying the cy-près doctrine and considering extrinsic evidence, the court determined that the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Foundation was indeed the residuary beneficiary, as it was impracticable to identify the "service organizations" mentioned in the original will and the testator had an overriding charitable intent towards the hospital.

In a high-conflict separation, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' two children, while the applicant mother sought joint custody.

The court found that the parents were unable to communicate effectively and that important decisions, particularly regarding the children's need for counseling, required timely resolution.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the father to ensure these decisions could be made, while ordering a specified access schedule for the mother, including alternate weekends and weekday evenings.

A request for a non-harassment order was dismissed as unnecessary given the parties' consent to communicate only via email about child-focused issues.