Jennifer Vandenberg

The court considered whether a mother could insist on strict compliance with a parenting order after the parties had followed a different schedule for over three years.

The father sought to restore the status quo of Thursday overnight visits, which the mother unilaterally attempted to revert to alternate Wednesdays.

The court found that the status quo should be maintained pending a full hearing, emphasizing the best interests of the child and discouraging unilateral changes.

The father's motion was granted, maintaining Thursday overnight parenting time.

This decision concerns a motion regarding the relocation of a 10-month-old child, Georgia, by her mother from Hamilton to Meaford, Ontario, without the father's consent.

The court reviews the parties' affidavits and the circumstances of the move, including issues of urgency, domestic violence allegations, parenting capacity, and the impact of distance on the child's relationship with both parents.

The court orders the mother to pursue arrangements to relocate back to Hamilton and to provide documentation of her housing applications, while maintaining the current parenting schedule with conditions.

This decision addresses costs following a motion concerning the scheduling of parenting time for a child.

The respondent mother was successful on the underlying motion and presumptively entitled to costs, having served an offer that exceeded the result obtained.

However, the applicant father also filed a genuine settlement offer.

The court noted that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith, and both sought to maximize time with their son.

Given the parties' respectful conduct, their successful negotiation of other issues, and the close nature of the decision on the remaining issue, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs.

This motion concerned the scheduling of a "fourth weekend" of parenting time for a five-year-old child, River, in a blended family context.

The applicant father, a long-distance truck driver, proposed a variable schedule based on the last weekend of each month due to his work.

The respondent mother sought a fixed four-week cycle to ensure her son could spend one weekend per month with his half-sister.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, finding that the father's variable schedule would lead to unreasonable gaps in the mother's time with both children and was more cumbersome for planning.

The court granted the mother's request for a fixed four-week cycle.

Following the dismissal of the paternal grandmother's motion to consolidate her access application with the mother's motion to change the father's access, the mother sought costs.

The paternal grandmother argued against costs, citing her limited ability to pay and suggesting the mother's receipt of Legal Aid should reduce the award.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that Legal Aid is irrelevant to costs and that ability to pay does not immunize a party from costs for unnecessary procedural steps.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,700.

The applicant mother and respondent father resolved most parenting issues at trial via Partial Final Minutes of Settlement, leaving child support and travel consent in dispute.

The court imputed the father's income at $45,000, including overtime, and ordered retroactive child support to April 1, 2018, rejecting his undue hardship claim.

Due to the high conflict between the parties and the father's previous unreasonable refusal to consent to travel, the court granted the mother authorization to travel outside Canada with the child without the father's consent.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs.

A father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule to establish equal shared parenting and to alter child support under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking a custody and access assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act or a referral to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that temporary custody or access arrangements should only be varied upon proof of a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests, which the father failed to establish.

The court imputed income to the father at $40,000 due to intentional underemployment arising from pursuit of an unprofitable business venture and insufficient job‑search efforts.

Despite a shared parenting arrangement exceeding the 40% threshold, the court ordered full table child support after considering the parties’ financial circumstances and the child’s standard of living.