Heather A. Mendes

This decision addresses the respondent's request for costs following a successful access motion.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that was not accepted by the applicant, and the final order was as favourable as or more favourable than the offer.

Despite the applicant's genuine fears regarding the child's best interests, the court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs of $7,000.00 to the respondent, balancing the parties' conduct and the reasonableness of the respondent's offer.

The parties separated and the respondent father had been exercising supervised access to their two-year-old child.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief, with the hearing focused on whether the respondent's access should be changed to unsupervised and expanded to include overnights.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to provide quality care for the child and that it was in the child's best interests to transition to unsupervised, expanded access, including overnight visits.

The Mother sought to relocate with the children from Sault Ste.

Marie to Windsor for a full-time teaching position, which the Father opposed.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test, finding a material change in circumstances due to the expiration of the Mother's leave of absence.

The court assessed the best interests of the children, weighing the benefits of remaining in Sault Ste.

Marie (strong family bonds, community) against the benefits of moving to Windsor (financial stability, Mother's strong parenting, existing support network, Father's flexible access plan).

The court found the Mother's testimony more credible and concluded that the financial benefits and the Mother's strong parenting skills, coupled with a viable parenting plan, outweighed the disruption of the move.

Leave to relocate was granted.

The mother brought a motion seeking the return of disputed chattels from the matrimonial home, where the father currently resides.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he needed the furniture to care for the children during his access and potential future custody, and noted he was facing domestic assault charges.

The court dismissed the mother's request for the disputed items, finding no urgent need and that the children were adequately furnished at her residence.

The court did, however, order the return of certain agreed-upon items to the mother.

Multiple motions and appeals arose from child protection proceedings involving the society and the parents.

Motions were brought by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the father, and the mother seeking, among other things, permission to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

On consent of all parties, the court issued procedural directions governing the scheduling of the motions, filing of factums and records, and the handling of proposed fresh evidence.

The court ordered that the motions would be heard on a specified date and scheduled the society’s appeal followed by the parents’ appeals.

Directions were also given regarding sealed filings and the sharing of materials across the related appeals.