Jeremy Dolgin

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to determine where the parties' four-year-old child should attend Junior Kindergarten, as the parents were deadlocked.

The father sought enrollment at Hopewell Public School, where the older sibling attended, while the applicant mother proposed French language schools.

Noting the lack of adequate evidentiary record to determine the child's best educational interests, the court ordered the child to be enrolled at Hopewell Public School to break the stalemate and maintain the status quo until a final determination could be made.

The applicant father brought a motion for child support arrears, a reduction in ongoing child support, and an order allowing him to obtain a passport for the youngest child without the respondent mother's consent.

The mother did not attend the hearing or provide updated financial disclosure.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the eldest child was no longer a child of the marriage and two other children had moved primarily to the father's residence.

The court ordered the mother to pay $23,625 in child support arrears, reduced the father's ongoing child support obligation, and granted the father the right to obtain a passport and travel internationally with the children without the mother's consent.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the father.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' two children vaccinated against Covid-19.

The respondent mother opposed the vaccination, citing concerns about side effects.

The parties had a 2018 Separation Agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The court declined to take judicial notice that the children's weight made them particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 and found the mother's concerns were reasonably held.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that there was no compelling reason to change the joint decision-making arrangement on a temporary basis before a full trial.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary, without prejudice order for equal parenting time over the summer.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for primary residence.

The parties had separated following a conflict that resulted in criminal charges against the father, which were later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond.

Both parties made allegations of substance abuse against each other.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that the maximum contact principle supported equal parenting time on a temporary basis.

The applicant's motion was granted and the respondent's motion was dismissed.

The moving party father brought a motion to appoint an expert to conduct an assessment of the parties' 9-year-old child regarding potential gender dysphoria and the use of male pronouns.

The responding party mother brought a cross-motion to appoint a different expert for a narrower assessment regarding gender pronouns.

The court reviewed the qualifications, availability, and processes of the proposed assessors.

The court appointed the father's proposed expert, noting his extensive experience, ability to provide an expeditious report, and the urgent need to proceed given the delay since the assessment was originally ordered on consent.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally relocated to France with their 16-month-old child without the father's consent.

The father brought an urgent motion for the child's return to Ottawa, while the mother sought permission to relocate, alleging family violence.

The court found insufficient evidence of family violence to justify the unilateral move and ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa, establishing a temporary parenting schedule.

In an uncontested divorce trial, the applicant sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, and international travel rights regarding the parties' three-year-old child.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, ordering that the respondent's parenting time be at the applicant's discretion due to his mental health issues.

The court imputed income to the respondent for periods of unemployment, fixing child support arrears at $29,099.00 and ongoing support at $745.00 per month.

The applicant was also granted the right to travel internationally with the child without the respondent's consent, and awarded $4,000 in costs.

Following a family law trial where the respondent father was largely successful on the dominant issue of parenting, he sought costs of $54,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be limited to $1,000 due to her limited ability to pay and partial success on property issues.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, particularly her persistent refusal to share parenting and her unfounded allegations of family violence.

After considering the mother's severable offer on debts and her ability to pay, the court ordered the mother to pay fixed costs of $45,000 to the father.

The parties separated after an 18-year relationship.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 9-year-old child, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that both parents were fit and capable, and that the mother's allegations of family violence against the father were largely unsubstantiated or did not warrant a parenting order in her favour.

The court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the mother due to the child's established life in Renfrew, but granted the father significant parenting time.

The court also ordered the division of the matrimonial home and equalization of property, and directed the father to pay Guideline child support.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child support, including section 7 expenses for a therapy dog, and sought to impute income to the father for intentional under-employment.

The court dismissed the claim for the therapy dog as a section 7 expense due to a lack of medical evidence.

The court declined to impute income to the father, finding he was not intentionally under-employed.

The court granted the father's motion for temporary spousal support, ordering the mother to pay $1,550 per month based on her higher income and his established need.

The parties consented to an interim order incorporating an access and visitation schedule and the report of Julie Guindon.

The respondent was ordered to pay $817 per month in child support for two children based on an annual income of $55,000.

Ms. Guindon was to remain available to assist the parties for 12 months, and the matter was assigned to the judge under the Coordinated Case Management protocol.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and prospective variation of child support under a separation agreement in a shared custody arrangement.

The respondent’s income had increased substantially after the agreement, yet support had not been recalculated annually as contemplated.

The court applied the framework from Contino v. Leonelli-Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, holding that the proper starting point remained the table set‑off amount based on the parties’ line 150 incomes.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the presumptive guideline amounts were inappropriate despite income exceeding $150,000.

Retroactive support was ordered from June 2012 with significant arrears and prospective set‑off support based on updated incomes.