Heather Garfinkel

The father brought a motion alleging the mother was in contempt of court orders regarding parenting time, as the children had refused to participate in alternating weekend visits since October 2024.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking retroactive authorization for her relocation with the two daughters from Barrie to Burk's Falls, Ontario.

The court declined to find contempt but found the mother in breach of the parenting order.

The court authorized the relocation on a temporary basis, imposed conditions requiring the mother to use reasonable parenting tools to facilitate the father's parenting time, and ordered both parties to participate in mediation and reunification therapy.

The court also imposed restrictions on further relocations and apportioned travel costs to the mother.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

Both parties filed voluminous materials that failed to comply with the prevailing Notice to the Profession regarding page limits.

The court narrowed the issues to three urgent matters: the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, the reinstatement of a parenting coach, and the enrollment of the children in therapy.

The court ordered a partial release of funds with a $150,000 holdback to protect equalization claims, reinstated the parenting coach, and permitted the applicant to enroll the children in therapy.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' non-compliance with the Rules.

The Halton Children's Aid Society brought a contested motion seeking to place the child, S.A.R., in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to supervision, and to supervise the mother's, M.A.R.'s, parenting time.

The Society alleged emotional harm and risk of emotional harm to the child due to the mother's persistent, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father and her coaching of the child.

The court found that the Society met its onus, concluding that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's unsupervised care, citing the mother's repeated unverified allegations, coaching, mental health issues, and the child's therapist's concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the father and ordering supervised access for the mother.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the Applicant brought a cross-motion for spousal and child support and for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for the sale of the home, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their special needs and the need for stability, and that the Respondent had no urgent need for the funds.

The Applicant's motion for spousal and child support was dismissed as the court found no evidentiary basis to impute income to the Respondent at the interim stage.

The Applicant's request for OCL involvement was granted to provide unbiased evidence regarding the children's best interests.

The Respondent father sought a contact order for his two sons after a temporary no-contact order was issued due to serious sexual assault allegations made by the Applicant mother's 15-year-old daughter against him, which were verified by Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services.

The court dismissed the father's motion for contact, emphasizing that the best interests of all three children, including the alleged victim, were paramount.

The court highlighted the importance of a risk assessment, which the father refused to undergo, and distinguished prior case law based on recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act concerning family violence.