Heather-Ann Mendes

The applicant commenced an action for spousal support and an interest in a home against her spouse, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and is a special party under the Family Law Rules.

Competing motions were brought by the spouse's sister and son to represent him in the litigation.

The court appointed the son, noting that the spouse had previously executed a power of attorney for property and a will naming the son as his attorney and executor, demonstrating trust and confidence in him.

This motion concerned arrangements for the child Karmyn's First Communion.

The Mother (applicant for the motion) sought to organize the event in Windsor, while the Father (respondent for the motion) insisted on his regular access schedule, which conflicted with the proposed dates, and suggested a second communion in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court prioritized the child's wish for both families to be together for the event.

The court ordered the First Communion to take place in Windsor on May 20, 2017, allowing both parents and their families to attend.

Specific access times were ordered for both parents around this event, and additional access was granted to the Mother on May 27, 2017, in Sault Ste.

Marie, in light of the recent passing of her father.

The court emphasized the need for parental flexibility and cooperation in the child's best interests, particularly during significant religious observances and family bereavements.

The applicant sought interim spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ($1,510/month), while the respondent proposed an amount just below the low range ($1,000/month).

The court considered the applicant's primary care role for two children with autism, her limited income, her plans to retrain, and the respondent's ability to pay.

Finding that the applicant had established a need and the respondent had the means, the court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range amount of $1,510 per month, along with interim child support.

Three motions were heard regarding temporary care and custody of a newborn child apprehended at birth.

The Children's Aid Society sought temporary care and custody, as did the mother and father.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the first part of the test (reasonable grounds to believe risk of likely harm) was satisfied, the court found the second part (child cannot be adequately protected by court order) was not met.

The court awarded temporary care and custody to the father, finding he had demonstrated maturity, responsibility, and a concrete plan for the child's care, supported by his mother's presence in the home.

The order included conditions regarding residency, school attendance, substance use, and maternal contact.

The applicant brought an uncontested family law application seeking custody, support, and property division.

The respondent had relocated to British Columbia and ceased contact with the family.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent based on past tax returns.

The applicant was awarded sole custody of the two children, base child support, and section 7 expenses for orthodontics and tutoring.

The court also awarded spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting the applicant gave up her career to support the respondent's education.

The applicant was granted the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The parties brought cross-motions to determine which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father sought to enroll the child in a French immersion and Aboriginal education program, supported by an Office of the Children's Lawyer recommendation.

The respondent mother sought to enroll the child in a neighbourhood school closer to her home, where the child's siblings attended.

The court declined to follow the OCL recommendation, finding that the lengthy bus commute required for the applicant's choice was too onerous for a four-year-old, and ordered the child to attend the neighbourhood school on an interim basis.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking an order requiring the respondent father to undergo a psychosexual assessment, including phallometric testing, based on allegations of sexual abuse of two girls from a prior relationship made over a decade after the alleged incidents.

The father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for ordering such an assessment had not been satisfied, that the motion was premature, and that the proposed assessment lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and utility in a forensic context.