Francois Kasenda Kabemba

This family law trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and a minor claim for reimbursement.

The court implemented a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother sole decision-making for medical care and the father for education, dental, and extracurricular activities, with mutual consultation.

The existing week-about parenting schedule was maintained.

The father's claim for cellphone reimbursement was dismissed.

Child support arrears were calculated, and ongoing payments were ordered based on the set-off method.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility of the parties' four children after the applicant mother left the matrimonial home with them and denied the father contact for several months.

The mother brought a countermotion for primary residence and child support, alleging abuse by the father.

The court reviewed CAS records, which did not substantiate the mother's abuse allegations but highlighted concerns regarding the mother's ability to maintain a clean home and ensure the children's hygiene.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while ordering a week on/week off shared parenting schedule.

Ongoing child support was ordered on a set-off basis, with retroactive support reserved.

The applicant children's aid society and the respondent mother each brought motions regarding the temporary care and custody of two children.

The children had been removed from the mother's care due to her erratic and aggressive behavior and placed with their respective fathers.

The court applied the test under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care of their fathers.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over costs following a previous motion.

The respondent sought to enforce a settlement agreement where the applicant would pay $3,000 in costs at $150 per month.

The applicant argued she did not agree to this amount and could not afford it.

The court found a clear and unequivocal settlement agreement between counsel, which the applicant had partially acted upon.

Applying principles of a lawyer's ostensible authority to settle, the court upheld the agreement, ordering the applicant to pay the agreed-upon costs.

In this child protection matter involving a newborn, the Society sought temporary care while pursuing Crown wardship for adoption.

The mother opposed and moved for temporary placement with a maternal aunt, with the father consenting to that proposal.

The court declined to change the child’s existing temporary placement before the kinship assessment of the aunt was completed, citing unresolved questions about the proposed plan and the risk of multiple placement changes.

Temporary care was therefore ordered to remain with the Society, without prejudice, with parental access at the Society’s discretion subject to existing visit terms.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, occupation rent for the matrimonial home, and an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant interim relief, noting the matter was already scheduled for trial within two months and that the requested orders would require credibility findings and fuller financial disclosure.

The court held that issues relating to occupation rent, ownership interests, equalization, and entitlement to spousal support should be determined by the trial judge after a full evidentiary hearing.

Concerns also existed regarding incomplete financial disclosure and the respondent’s ongoing payment of household and child-related expenses.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.

Following an application concerning enforcement of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs.

The purchaser applicant had succeeded in obtaining an order confirming that the vendor corporation remained obligated to convey title and extending the closing date.

Competing internal factions within the respondent corporation advanced opposing positions, but neither faction was treated as a party for purposes of the costs determination.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate and rejected a claim for higher or substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the applicant purchaser and payable by the respondent corporation.

The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.

She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.

The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.

The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.