Gail K. Macrae

The respondent brought a motion seeking partition and sale of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support.

The applicant opposed both requests, arguing malicious/vexatious conduct regarding the sale and lack of entitlement for spousal support.

The court granted the partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the respondent and no prejudice to the applicant's Family Law Act rights.

The court also granted interim spousal support, determining a prima facie non-compensatory entitlement based on the long marriage and the respondent's economic need and limited work history.

The Appellant, Andreas Touma, appealed two orders of Clay J. dismissing his motion for interim shared custody and equal parenting time of his newborn son, and dismissing his application to set aside the first order based on apprehension of bias.

The motions judge had ruled that the application should be commenced in Oshawa, where the child ordinarily resided, rather than Peel, where the father resided.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motions judge correctly applied the Family Law Rules regarding the ordinary residence for commencing an application, distinguishing it from habitual residence for jurisdictional contests.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the motions judge.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child after the respondent father unilaterally removed the child from her care following an altercation.

The father argued he established a new status quo and sought interim sole custody with supervised access for the mother.

The court found that a status quo cannot be established by unilateral self-help and that the father's actions raised serious questions about his parenting judgment.

Relying on evidence from the Children's Aid Society, the court granted temporary sole custody to the mother with a specified parenting schedule for the father.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a consent Final Order to have the children relocate to live with him and attend school in person rather than remotely.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to transfer the case to Oshawa following her move to Little Britain.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she had breached the prior order by moving without proper notice.

The court also dismissed the father's motion, noting a lack of urgency, the absence of input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and declining to interfere with the mother's final decision-making authority regarding remote schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No costs were awarded.