Jeremy Herron

The applicant mother sought a parenting order for the parties' child.

The respondent father, relying on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) and an order from an unrecognized alternative tribunal, challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The court rejected the respondent's jurisdictional arguments, finding them nonsensical and abusive.

Proceeding with the trial in the respondent's absence, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with parenting time at her discretion, due to the respondent's history of family violence and overholding the child.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 deemed custody order, seeking primary residence of her two adolescent children and child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion, seeking to retain custody, reduce the mother's parenting time, and obtain child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the mother's request for primary residence, citing the children's strong views and preferences to remain with their father and the mother's inability to manage the son's behavioural issues.

The court reduced the mother's parenting time in accordance with the children's wishes and ordered her to pay $280 per month in child support based on an income of $18,500.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children attend in-person learning rather than remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed, preferring remote learning due to health risks.

Applying the framework from recent jurisprudence, the court found that the government's plan for returning to school should be presumed reasonable absent specific evidence to the contrary.

Given the children's need for social interaction, one child's learning difficulties, and the mother's inability to supervise remote learning during her parenting weeks, the court concluded that in-person learning was in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted.

The father brought an urgent motion seeking to prevent the mother from relocating with the parties’ young child outside Simcoe County and moving to Manitoba.

The parties had joint custody with the child’s primary residence with the mother, and the father exercised limited weekly access.

The court considered interim mobility principles and the child’s best interests, including the mother’s need to relocate due to the sale of her residence and her lack of local support.

While the court permitted the mother to relocate within Ontario to obtain family support and financial stability, it declined to allow an interim move to Manitoba because it would fundamentally alter the existing access regime and create a new status quo before trial.

The father’s request to restrict relocation within Ontario was dismissed, but the mother was prohibited from leaving Ontario pending further court order.