Jayne E. Hughes

This case concerns a motion to change a final parenting order, primarily addressing the child's primary residence and child support, triggered by the mother's relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child starting school, necessitating a variation of the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interest to primarily reside with the mother in Trenton, rejecting the father's proposal for primary residence with him.

The decision also addressed child support, imputing income to the mother and adjusting support obligations, and clarified other parenting arrangements, emphasizing a child-centric analysis.

This case addresses a motion and cross-motion in a high-conflict family dispute concerning parental alienation and non-compliance with prior parenting orders.

The Respondent Mother sought temporary custody and an order for the children to attend a "Family Bridges" reunification workshop, alleging the Applicant Father's systematic alienation and sabotage of therapeutic efforts.

The Applicant Father denied the allegations and sought a focused assessment.

The court found the Applicant Father consistently breached previous orders by involving the children in adult disputes and undermining reunification therapy.

The court granted the Respondent Mother's requested relief, including temporary sole custody, enrollment in the Family Bridges program, a restraining order against the Applicant Father, and ordered him to cover the workshop and aftercare costs.

The Applicant Father's cross-motion was dismissed.

This ruling addresses costs following the resolution of all other issues in a family law case.

The Applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour and delay.

The Respondent sought costs and reimbursement, alleging the Applicant withheld financial disclosure, obstructed attempts to obtain it, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith.

The court found that both parties withheld relevant financial information, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith, thereby rebutting the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

Given that the Applicant had already been awarded interim costs, no further costs were ordered for either party.

The Applicant Father sought to confirm and enforce an Alberta court order for the return of the child, Denzel James, to Alberta, and for the father to be designated as the primary care parent.

The Respondent Mother opposed this motion and filed a cross-motion for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over custody and access, and to grant her sole custody.

The central issue was which forum, Ontario or Alberta, had jurisdiction.

The court found that Alberta had jurisdiction, as the child's habitual residence was Alberta, the mother removed the child without the father's consent or a court order, and there was no evidence that the child would suffer serious harm if returned to Alberta.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and ordered the child's return to Alberta, emphasizing the public policy against child abduction.

The Durham Children’s Aid Society brought without-notice motions (14B Motions) to correct an error in a temporary order, seeking to change temporary care and custody to the Society, which would retroactively trigger a 24-month wardship time limit.

The Respondent Mother's counsel brought an oral motion to strike these 14B Motions and supporting affidavits.

The court found that the Society's actions were procedurally unfair, as the change would cause substantive prejudice to the Respondent Mother and she had not been noted in default.

The Society's 14B Motions were dismissed.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent argued the marriage was void ab initio because the applicant's foreign divorce certificate was forged, and alternatively sought an unequal division of net family property.

The court found the foreign divorce certificate was valid and the parties were legally married.

The court also held that an equal division of net family property was not unconscionable despite the respondent's greater financial contributions and the applicant's financial support of his overseas family.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $147,616.00.