Fhara Arminda Pottinger

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.