Jennifer Long

This decision addresses competing motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making responsibility between separated parents.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and supervised parenting for the father, while the father sought to maintain the status quo of equal time-sharing.

The court reviewed the evidence, including allegations of family violence, the children’s adjustment, and the parties’ conduct, and ultimately ordered a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, declined to order supervision, and directed the parties to arrange therapy for the child L1.

The court also excluded surreptitious recordings and improper reply affidavits.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion seeking a restraining order and a change to existing parenting terms, requesting primary care of the children and supervised access for the Applicant Father.

The court found the Father's anger and instability threatened the children's and Mother's welfare, noting family violence in the form of emotional and psychological abuse and coercive control.

The court granted the Mother's requests, ordering supervised parenting time for the Father, sole decision-making authority for the Mother, and a restraining order against the Father.

The court also addressed the threshold for changing a temporary consent order, finding a material change in circumstances was not strictly necessary given the order's nature, but also that the Father's escalating behavior and the birth of a new child constituted material changes.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

The court found the father in breach of his disclosure obligations, noting his evasive and selective disclosure and purposely opaque financial situation.

Citing established jurisprudence on the fundamental nature of financial disclosure in family law, the court granted the mother's motion, struck the father's pleadings, granted leave for an uncontested trial, allowed the mother to amend her pleadings to seek a restraining order, and ordered the father to pay $7,500 in costs.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking various relief, including the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, an urgent case conference, and orders restraining the respondent father's communication and filming of exchanges.

The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness, finding it had jurisdiction to vary a final order on an interim basis in urgent cases.

The court found a strong prima facie case for a change in parenting arrangements due to high conflict and harm to the children, particularly the eldest.

The court suspended the existing shared parenting schedule, granted the mother primary residency and final decision-making authority on a temporary basis, and ordered the father to pay costs for delayed pleadings.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, an urgent case conference, an order restraining the respondent father's communication, and an order preventing the father from filming exchanges.

The court found the concerns, though not COVID-19 related, impacted current parenting arrangements and met the test for urgency.

The court ordered a teleconference to be scheduled, set deadlines for reply affidavits, limited argument times, and indicated an intention to address the OCL request and potential modifications to parenting arrangements at the conference.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), an urgent case conference, a restraining order against the respondent father regarding communication, and an order preventing the father from filming exchanges.

The court found the motion met the test of urgency due to escalating conflict negatively impacting the children.

While deferring the OCL appointment and case conference, the court ordered several steps to gather information and de-escalate the conflict, including directing the York Region Children's Aid Society to file an affidavit, the mother to provide counsellor notes and OFW communications, and the father to provide evidence of criminal charge withdrawals and details of any outstanding charges.

The court also temporarily suspended part of the existing communication protocol.

Following cross-motions where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith by seeking a last-minute adjournment and bringing meritless motions to prolong her retention of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was awarded costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, which included a reduction to reflect the applicant's success on support issues.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, custody, access, and support, the court determined costs of the motion.

The responding party had made a settlement offer before the case conference that was more favourable on key issues than the final order.

Although the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it did not address support and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court considered the offer under Rule 18(16) when fixing costs.

The court also found aspects of the applicant’s conduct unreasonable under Rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs of the motion were awarded to the successful party in the amount of $9,000 payable within 60 days.