Grace-Ann Abbeygayle Roberts

Trial concerning the applicant mother's request to relocate with the parties' two young children (ages approximately 1.5 years and 7 months) to the Philippines, opposed by the respondent father who sought unsupervised and eventually shared parenting time.

The court found the mother had been the children's primary caregiver since birth, that the father had failed to provide any financial support for over a year despite court orders, and that there was a power imbalance constituting family violence through financial abuse and the mother's tenuous immigration status.

The court authorized the relocation, finding the mother's plan for the Philippines was child-focused and fiscally responsible, offering family support, stable housing, healthcare, and employment prospects unavailable to her in Canada.

The father was granted virtual parenting time, annual visits to the Philippines, and annual in-person visits when the mother returns to Toronto with the children.

This decision addresses the issue of costs in family law motions concerning parenting, child support, and relocation.

The court analyzed the application of subrule 24(12) regarding costs consequences of failure to accept a settlement offer, finding that the mother’s offer was as good as or better than the court’s order on key issues such as primary residence, decision-making responsibility, and supervised parenting time.

The father was ordered to pay costs, but the amount was reduced due to his success on the relocation issue.

The court emphasized the importance of reasonableness, proportionality, and the parties’ conduct in awarding costs, noting both parties acted unreasonably and neither was a credible witness.

The decision also highlights the necessity of a bill of costs for proper assessment and the court’s discretion in setting payment plans.

The Township of Carling brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Gordon Arthur Mason, to answer outstanding undertakings and improperly refused questions from his examination for discovery, and to deliver a fresh, particularized affidavit of documents.

The motion arose from a property dispute where the plaintiff alleged regulatory negligence and other misconduct against the Township regarding a shore road allowance and structures on a neighbour's property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Township had not established a waiver of solicitor-client privilege over the entire Petch file, nor had it proven that further relevant documents were withheld or that the plaintiff's affidavit of documents was so poorly drafted as to require re-organization.