Hilary Goodman

This trial decision addresses a family law dispute between cohabiting parents concerning relocation, decision-making authority, parenting time, child and spousal support, and occupation rent.

The Applicant mother unilaterally relocated with the children to Barrie, which the Respondent father opposed.

The court approved the relocation, acknowledging the established status quo, and implemented a modified joint decision-making framework where the mother has final authority in case of disagreement.

A detailed parenting schedule was set.

The Applicant's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The court imputed the Respondent's income for support purposes, accounting for undeclared cash revenue and personal expenses, and ordered further calculations for support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The applicant mother brought a motion to reduce the respondent father's parenting time based on an OCL report recommending weekend-only time.

The OCL report revealed that the father had failed to disclose numerous police attendances at his home for domestic disputes involving his new partner.

The court found that the father's failure to disclose this chaotic living situation to the judge who previously expanded his parenting time justified a change in the interim status quo.

The court reduced the father's parenting time to limit the children's exposure to the chaotic environment.

The court also ordered the father to provide an accounting of home expenses paid in lieu of support, but dismissed the mother's requests for mandatory counselling and home repairs.

The parties settled their family law litigation, and the respondent sought costs of $28,764.15 while the applicant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that both parties had a measure of success in the settlement, meaning there was no clear capitulation by either side.

However, the court awarded $6,500 in partial recovery costs to the respondent because the applicant's unreasonable failure to provide required financial disclosure necessitated the proceedings.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings in a Motion to Change proceeding.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including: cessation of child support payments (arrears of $11,900), failure to provide financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments, failure to pay a costs order, and refusal to engage in court-ordered reunification counselling.

The court found egregious and exceptional circumstances warranting the striking of the father's Response to Motion to Change, Affidavit in Support of Custody and Access, and Financial Statement.

However, recognizing the involvement of children and the potential merit of the father's claim regarding changed circumstances due to retirement, the court provided a pathway for re-engagement with specific compliance conditions to be met by December 31, 2020.

The applicant, Angela Paulsen, brought a motion to determine the date of separation and to extend the limitation period for her property equalization claim, including pension division.

The court found the date of separation to be September 1, 2008, based on the parties' disclosure to their children.

The court granted the extension of the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, finding that the delay was incurred in good faith due to blameless ignorance regarding pension divisibility, and that the respondent, Keith Paulsen, would not suffer substantial prejudice.

Appeal from a Superior Court order on motions to change custody, residency, and child support.

The father appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his motion to change the child's primary residence from the mother's home in Owen Sound to his apartment in Toronto, and to grant him final decision-making authority.

The father also challenged the retroactive child support award dating to January 2012.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no material change in circumstances regarding custody and residency, but allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, varying the retroactive date to June 3, 2014 (the date of the motion to change) and correcting the set-off calculation to reflect only 50% of the outstanding costs award.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge, who had dismissed their motion to strike the respondent's claim for lack of jurisdiction and expiry of a limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court decisions is only available in narrow circumstances, such as when the court acts without jurisdiction.

The court found that the Deputy Judge's provisional determination of jurisdiction based on allegations of theft did not warrant judicial review, as the Small Claims Court generally has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.