Jennesa Plaine

The applicant, Lorri Lynn Parkins, sought an order for partition and sale of the matrimonial home as interim relief in her application to set aside a separation agreement with the respondent, Douglas John Parkins.

The court declined to order the sale, finding that it would prejudice the respondent’s rights under the agreement, which had not yet been set aside.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall from the initial equalization payment and to resume full monthly payments, as his unilateral reductions were improper.

Costs were not awarded, as success was divided.

The Applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award concerning the sale of a jointly owned property, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to invalidate prior court orders granting her a right of first refusal.

The Respondent sought dismissal, arguing the prior orders were not final and the arbitrator acted within scope.

The court found the arbitrator correctly determined he lacked jurisdiction to enforce court orders, but erred in concluding he could invalidate them or direct a sale without formal agreement.

The court set aside the portion of the award requiring the property's sale and the reimbursement of expenses, upholding the Applicant's right of first refusal.

The Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), sought an order to release $38,203.40 in garnished inheritance funds to satisfy child support arrears owed by the payor.

The payor acknowledged arrears but requested the court exercise equitable jurisdiction to reduce the garnishment amount to $25,000 and propose a repayment plan for the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the payor's request for a repayment plan as it was not formally brought by motion.

The court found the payor's arguments regarding "reassessments" disingenuous, noting his failure to pay proper support and increase in income without corresponding support adjustments.

The court emphasized the child's right to support and the payor's obligation.

The payor's dispute was dismissed, and the release of the full garnished amount was ordered.

The moving party mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child to another city for employment reasons.

The responding party father opposed the move and sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that it was premature to permit relocation on an interim basis given the conflicting evidence and the significant disruption it would cause to the child's status quo and the father's parenting time.

The court dismissed the relocation motion, adjourning the issue to trial, and ordered a shared-care parenting schedule on a four-day rotation.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful motion regarding child access and access transfers.

The applicant opposed, arguing costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at a nominal amount.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and acted reasonably, while the applicant acted unreasonably by refusing to consider alternative approaches to access exchanges.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith, and fixed the respondent's costs at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.