Hannah Kazman

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of property and costs payments he owed to the respondent mother under a final family law order, citing financial hardship.

The mother brought a cross-motion to set off her child support obligations against the amounts the father owed her.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no legal basis to pre-emptively stay enforcement of a final order based on ability to pay.

On the cross-motion, the court stayed the enforcement of the mother's child support obligations pending further financial disclosure to determine whether a set-off could be structured without materially disadvantaging the children.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the return of the children and other relief after the respondent father overheld them following March break.

The court ordered a temporary suspension of the respondent's mid-week access as a remedy for the overholding.

The court also clarified the parties' final order, ruling that it does not prohibit the respondent from authorizing his common-law partner to pick up and drop off the children for access visits.

Temporary adjustments to the access exchange location were also ordered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for an urgent motion for the return of children, which was granted due to the respondent father's deliberate and prolonged breach of a final court order.

The father overheld the children for over four weeks in an undisclosed location, 1,700 km away, without legal justification, and failed to facilitate calls.

The court found the father's actions constituted bad faith, designed to pressure the mother into changing the access terms of their final order, and awarded full indemnity costs of $6,850.06 to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a 2018 final custody order after the respondent father overheld their three children for approximately one month, taking them to Sioux Lookout without consent.

The court, having previously ordered the children's urgent return, addressed the remaining relief sought by the applicant, including make-up access and clarification on exchange protocols.

The court found the father's actions to be a flagrant breach and issued an interim order for a revised access schedule as a partial remedy, emphasizing the children's need to reconnect with their mother.

Further submissions on make-up time and temporary access variations due to the COVID-19 pandemic were adjourned.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to enforce a 2018 final order, seeking the immediate return of her three children whom the respondent father had overheld after March Break and taken to Sioux Lookout without her knowledge.

The court found the matter urgent due to the father's breach of the order and the undisclosed location of the children.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother on April 27, 2020, and established interim phone contact.

The request for police enforcement was denied as premature, with the court emphasizing the potential psychological harm to children and increased COVID-19 risks associated with police involvement, reserving such measures for non-compliance.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to enforce a 2018 final custody order, alleging the respondent father had overheld their three children for over a month, contrary to the order.

The court found urgency established, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the parenting status quo for children's well-being during the COVID-19 period, and scheduled a teleconference hearing with abridged timelines for submissions.

The applicant father sought urgent temporary sole custody of three children and an order for the return of one child, A.R.L.D., who the respondent mother unilaterally removed from the jurisdiction during a COVID-19 self-quarantine period.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was urgent due to concerns for the child's well-being and the need for police assistance, referring it for a full motion hearing and outlining procedural directions for service and future proceedings.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent sought joint custody and an equalization of net family property.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the respondent's controlling behaviour made joint custody contrary to the children's best interests.

The court ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support based on minimum wage, found the applicant entitled to spousal support, and directed a further hearing to determine the respondent's current income as a pharmacist for ongoing support purposes.