Jeffrey B. Mammon

The parties requested that their upcoming family law settlement conference proceed virtually rather than in-person, on consent.

The court held a teleconference to address the request to change the presumptive mode of hearing.

The Regional Senior Justice outlined the factors the court will consider when a party seeks to depart from the presumptive mode, emphasizing that limited court resources and scheduling complexities require a clear and compelling reason.

The court ruled that consent alone is insufficient to change the presumptive mode and ordered the settlement conference to proceed in-person on a rescheduled date.

The applicant father sought joint custody of the parties' child with primary residence with the respondent mother and weekend access, or alternatively sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Brampton to London, Ontario for employment purposes.

The court found the respondent was the primary caregiver and granted temporary permission for relocation, finding the move would not materially interfere with the applicant's access and would provide financial benefits to the family unit.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant was successful.

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

The Respondent argued against costs due to the Applicant's failure to serve an offer to settle, or alternatively, proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding her success warranted it but not the Respondent's conduct for a higher scale.

Costs were ordered payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

The applicant mother, who had primary de facto custody of the parties' child, brought a motion seeking court authorization to have the child vaccinated at an urgent care pediatric clinic during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The respondent father did not oppose vaccination but wanted it done by the child's regular doctor with his input.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to be vaccinated under medical supervision, noting the regular pediatrician was not practicing during the pandemic.

The court granted the order and also awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,131.29 for a previous motion.

The respondent father brought a motion for in-person and video access to the parties' child during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother did not oppose the access but brought a cross-motion regarding vaccinations, which was adjourned due to short notice.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principle of maximum contact under the Divorce Act, the court granted the respondent temporary access on alternating weekends and virtual access twice a week, subject to Covid-19 safety protocols.

A timetable was set for the cross-motion.