J. Breithaupt Smith

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and primary residency of the parties' surviving child, and to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with the child from Waterloo to Bowmanville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation.

The court found that the parties' Revised Parenting Plan, which removed geographic restrictions on the mother's residence, remained in effect.

The court permitted the mother to relocate with the child to Bowmanville, maintaining the joint custody arrangement and the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The father's requests for sole custody, a police enforcement clause, and a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act were dismissed.

Following a 14-day trial where the applicant father successfully resisted the respondent mother's application to relocate their child to Michigan, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party beat their respective offers to settle and that neither party engaged in bad faith.

Applying a 60% partial indemnity rate to the father's reasonable costs and considering the mother's ability to pay, the court awarded the father $65,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $380.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2010 final order, seeking to rescind support arrears and recalculate child and spousal support based on his actual income, citing ongoing mental health issues (Bipolar Disorder) that limited his ability to work full-time.

The responding party mother argued for increased support based on the father's higher hourly wage.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on both the mental health diagnosis and the wage increase.

The court excused the father's intentional underemployment for several years due to his health needs but imputed income for recent years.

Spousal support was terminated effective June 30, 2019, and child support for the two adult children was adjusted based on their educational status.

The court declined to rescind the arrears entirely but reduced them based on the recalculations and ordered a monthly payment plan.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to place three children with their father under a six-month supervision order, with the mother's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The father consented, and the mother did not actively oppose the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, screened the evidence for admissibility (including business records and children's hearsay statements), and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded that the children continued to be in need of protection and that the proposed order was in their best interests.