James F. Diamond

The applicant father sought to relocate with the two children from Toronto to Lindsay, Ontario.

The respondent mother opposed the move and brought multiple motions to adjourn the bifurcated trial, citing unsupported medical issues.

The court dismissed the adjournment requests and proceeded with the trial.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that the high-conflict environment was primarily driven by the mother and that the children desired the move.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to relocate to Lindsay with the father, and ordered a specified parenting schedule to ensure maximum contact with the mother.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the release of 50% of the net sale proceeds from a jointly owned property, with a portion to be paid to the respondent for child support arrears.

The respondent opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mediation/arbitration clause in their prior agreement, and claiming damages for the applicant's alleged misconduct regarding the property sale.

The court found the respondent had waived the arbitration clause by actively participating in the litigation.

The court ordered the release of $604,500.00 to the applicant, less $19,200.00 for child support arrears, with the balance remaining in trust.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' four children attend school for in-person learning and that parenting transitions take place at the school.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, opposed in-person learning due to COVID-19 risks and the children's alleged history of respiratory issues.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found no compelling medical evidence that the children were at increased risk and concluded that the benefits of in-person learning, including structure and peer interaction, outweighed the risks.

The court ordered the children to attend school in-person and requested further submissions on the issue of parenting transitions.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside ten previous court orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served under the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to refuse the respondent an audience because he remained in continuous breach of those orders.

The court held that a litigant cannot ignore court orders and still demand an audience.

The court directed that the respondent must first bring a motion to stay the impugned orders; if successful, he may proceed with his jurisdiction motion, but if unsuccessful, he will be refused an audience until he complies.

The parties were divorced in Connecticut, where a final order dealt with custody and child support.

The father subsequently obtained an order from the Connecticut court permitting him to relocate with the children to Ontario.

After moving, the father commenced an application in Ontario seeking to supersede the Connecticut orders regarding custody, access, and child support.

The mother brought a motion to stay the Ontario proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Connecticut was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, and that Ontario was the forum conveniens given the children's habitual residence and the location of current evidence.

The maternal grandparents of the parties' daughter brought a motion to be added as parties to the proceeding and to continue litigation on behalf of the deceased respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proceeding was stayed under Rule 11.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondent's death and no Order to Continue had been obtained.

Furthermore, even if an Order to Continue had been obtained, the motion to add parties would fail under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules because all issues between the original parties had been settled by consent, and the grandparents' claim for access must be brought in a separate application.

The applicant brought a motion alleging the respondent breached a preservation order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking clarification that the preservation order permitted him to sell real property, provided proceeds were held in trust.

The court ordered the respondent to hold net sale proceeds from two properties in trust and to provide a list of assets for his corporations.

The applicant's request to suspend the listings of two other properties was denied due to insufficient evidence, with the court suggesting the respondent recast his cross-motion for leave to sell if parties could not agree.

The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.

The applicant opposed the urgency request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.

The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the applicant to comply with previous court orders and return their youngest son, Calvin, to her residence, with police enforcement if necessary.

The applicant opposed and filed a cross-motion to vary parenting time, which was deemed non-urgent.

The court granted the respondent's motion, finding the applicant's reasons for retaining the child unsubstantiated and noting a history of high conflict and unproven allegations of abuse.

The court ordered Calvin's immediate return and authorized police assistance for enforcement.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to parenting time and travel for their son during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent unilaterally took the child to Whistler, British Columbia, despite an agreement to remain in Toronto and the applicant's concerns about non-essential travel and COVID-19 risks.

The court found that the respondent breached the terms of a prior British Columbia order (the "Bowden Order") and the parties' subsequent agreement.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of duress and emphasized the "best interests of the child" principle, particularly the "zero tolerance" for reckless exposure to COVID-19 risk.

Interim orders were granted, mandating the respondent to comply with COVID-19 protocols, restricting in-person access to Ontario, and prohibiting the use of public transit for the child.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child support.

The key disputes involved the applicant's income for child support purposes, specifically whether a $730,000 one-time earning from business sales should be included, and whether a $650,000 transfer from the applicant to the respondent for a property down payment constituted an inter vivos gift.

The applicant argued his ongoing payment of over $6,000 in monthly expenses for the matrimonial home should stand in lieu of child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that including the one-time earning would be "double dipping" and that the respondent failed to prove the $650,000 transfer was a gift.

The court set the applicant's income for child support at $194,688.00 and found his property expense contributions covered his child support obligations.

The court also ordered the applicant to ensure the respondent and the parties' son were listed as beneficiaries on his extended health benefits.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the respondent to comply with an existing parenting schedule and to provide make-up access time for missed visits in March and April 2020.

The respondent had unilaterally suspended the applicant's access, citing various concerns, including the applicant's alleged drug use, apartment cleanliness, building common areas, dog ownership, and a general mistrust, without specific evidence of the applicant's non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court granted the applicant's motion, emphasizing that existing parenting arrangements should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic, subject to adherence to health precautions, and that the best interests of the child require maintaining important parental relationships safely.

The court also directed the parties to address the make-up access time within their costs submissions if they could not resolve it.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access visits with their seven-year-old son due to concerns over COVID-19 and interprovincial travel between Ontario and Quebec.

The mother alleged the father failed to practice proper social distancing during a recent visit.

The court found that the father's actions were not reckless and that he had agreed to abide by COVID-19 protocols for future visits.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, with the court emphasizing the presumption that existing parenting arrangements should continue safely.

The respondent brought a motion seeking immediate resumption of parenting time and make-up time, which had been suspended due to the applicant's concerns about potential COVID-19 exposure from the respondent's workplace and the presence of international students in his home.

The applicant sought to delay the resumption of parenting time until April 6, 2020, following a 14-day self-isolation period for the respondent and the students.

The court, emphasizing the best interests of the child and adopting principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, ordered the parenting schedule to resume on April 6, 2020, conditional on the respondent and the students continuing self-isolation, practicing social distancing, and displaying no COVID-19 symptoms.

The issue of make-up parenting time was deferred to costs submissions if the parties could not resolve it.

The respondent brought an urgent motion for interim child support.

The applicant argued that his payment of over $6,000 per month in family home expenses should stand in lieu of child support.

The court found it could not determine urgency or the merits without further materials from both parties.

The motion was adjourned with a timetable for the delivery of responding and reply materials.

The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.

The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.

The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.

The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.

Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.

The parties, self-represented, sought final orders regarding custody and parenting time for their eight-year-old child, Dylan, following their separation in 2012.

The applicant sought joint custody and equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off basis.

The respondent sought sole custody and continuation of the existing parenting schedule.

The court granted joint custody, finding sufficient cooperative parenting history, but denied the applicant's request for equal parenting time, emphasizing the child's need for stability and consistency over the proposed unpredictable schedule.

The existing parenting schedule was continued, and a divorce was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to Dubai, alleging the respondent mother abducted the child to Ontario.

At a case conference, the court determined procedural steps for the upcoming motion.

The court scheduled a five-day summary trial for January 2020, denying the mother's request for a later date to accommodate witnesses from Iran, emphasizing the need for expedition in alleged child abduction cases.

The court also denied requests for pre-hearing questioning, a court-appointed expert, and interim access, noting the latter was not properly before the court.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations after paying for 28 years following a 21-year marriage.

The respondent, aged 72, planned to retire and rely primarily on his pension, which had already been equalized.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to increase support.

The court found that the respondent's retirement constituted a catastrophic change in circumstances and that continuing support from his equalized pension would amount to impermissible double dipping.

The respondent's motion was granted, terminating support via a step-down schedule, and the applicant's cross-motion was dismissed.