Ian Gerald Theodore Smits

This case involved a final determination of parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support following the separation of the parties.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and decision-making, maintaining the existing parenting schedule, and child support arrears.

The respondent father sought a "week-about" equal parenting schedule, joint decision-making, and no retroactive child support.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time, granting the mother primary residence and the father alternate weekend and midweek overnight parenting time, emphasizing the children's need for stability.

The mother was granted primary decision-making authority, subject to a mandatory consultation process with the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, rejecting his arguments against retroactive support and undue hardship.

The applicant, Craig M., sought bail release pending appeal of his conviction for sexual offences.

His appeal was based on ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging inadequate advice regarding his right to testify and mode of trial, and general inadequate performance.

The court found the claims regarding mode of trial and general performance frivolous.

While the claim about advice on testifying was not frivolous, it did not clearly surpass the "not frivolous" threshold due to a lack of supporting evidence, absence of a waiver of privilege, and problematic, evolving affidavits.

Given the seriousness of the offences and the weakness of the proposed appeal, the application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior custody order, seeking sole custody and termination of child support, alleging material changes in the children's educational needs, supervision needs, over-identification with the mother, and unmet medical needs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the two-stage test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, requiring a material change in circumstances before considering the children's best interests.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances on any of the four bases alleged, dismissing the motion to change.

The appellants, towing companies owned by members of the Six Nations of Grand River Indian Reserve, sought to retain vehicles towed and stored at their facilities pending payment of towing and storage fees.

The respondent insurance company, which had acquired ownership of the vehicles following accidents or thefts, brought applications under the Repair and Storage Liens Act to retrieve the vehicles.

The appellants claimed exemption from the provincial lien regime under section 89(1) of the Indian Act, arguing that the vehicles constituted personal property of Indians located on a reserve and therefore could not be seized by non-Indian parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 89(1) of the Indian Act only protects against seizure by creditors or the Crown, not by debtors.

Since the respondent was a debtor rather than a creditor, the appellants could not claim the protection of section 89(1).

Following a family law proceeding involving support claims, the court addressed costs.

The respondent in the underlying application was generally successful, though not to the full extent of the relief sought.

No settlement offers justified a substantial indemnity award.

Considering the reasonable hours and hourly rate of counsel, as well as the expectations of the parties and the absence of a costs order at the case conference, the court ordered the unsuccessful applicant to pay partial indemnity costs.

A motion to change child support under the Divorce Act sought retroactive adjustment of child support and contribution toward section 7 extraordinary expenses including orthodontic treatment, driver’s education, and post-secondary education.

The responding parent cross‑moved for a retroactive reduction in support based on alleged reduced income and business losses.

The court rejected the claimed self‑employment losses due to insufficient evidence and calculated income based on employment earnings.

The court ordered proportional contributions to section 7 expenses and recalculated guideline support, resulting in arrears payable and prospective support adjustments including university costs for a child attending post-secondary education.