23 total
The court balanced disclosure obligations and privacy protections in a high-conflict custody dispute, granting partial relief to both parties.
In this highly contested family law motion, the court addressed competing disclosure and procedural requests from both parents in a custody and access dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.
The respondent sought production of communications with experts and the applicant's mental health records, while the applicant sought questioning of the respondent and an expert, as well as Crown disclosure.
The court granted partial relief to both parties, balancing the need for fair trial preparation against privacy interests and litigation efficiency.
The court approved mutual questioning of the parties but denied questioning of the jointly retained expert, granted production of the applicant's mental health records to the respondent's counsel (with restrictions), denied production of privileged communications with experts, and ordered a structured timeline for Crown disclosure.
The court declined to award costs to the applicant following a mid-trial settlement on parenting issues due to divided success.
The applicant sought costs related to parenting issues after a settlement was reached on both parenting and financial matters at the outset of trial.
The court found that success on parenting issues was divided and that the respondent, a self-represented litigant, had acted reasonably in negotiations, securing more favourable terms than the applicant's offer.
The court declined to award costs, emphasizing the importance of encouraging settlement and not "pre-judging" the outcome of issues resolved through negotiation.
The court granted the mother temporary custody and a restraining order, but transferred the family law proceedings to the children's ordinary residence.
The mother brought a motion seeking temporary custody of two children, supervised access for the father, and a restraining order.
The father brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, equal time-sharing, and transfer of the case to Guelph.
The court found evidence of domestic violence by the father against the mother and awarded temporary custody to the mother with limited unsupervised access to the father on Saturdays.
A restraining order was granted restricting the father's contact with the mother.
The case was transferred to Guelph as the children's ordinary residence, though the mother was not required to relocate.