Jeremy Stephen Dolgin

The decision addresses an urgent motion brought by the respondent, Maria Mahmud, seeking to enforce recommendations from a case conference and a domestic contract regarding parenting time with the child, Minha Abid.

The court found the matter was not urgent, emphasizing the importance of case conferences, settlement discussions, and the confidentiality of those proceedings.

The court also discussed the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process, finding neither applied to bar the motion.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, and no costs were awarded.

This appeal concerned a family law dispute arising from the breakdown of an 18-year relationship, focusing on decision-making responsibility, parenting time for their child, and allegations of family violence.

The appellant mother challenged the trial judge's order for joint decision-making, arguing a lack of effective communication and a failure to properly consider family violence.

She also appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that joint decision-making was in the child's best interests despite communication challenges, that family violence allegations were thoroughly considered and rejected, and that the costs award was a proper exercise of discretion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules for the return of his 16-month-old daughter to Ottawa.

The respondent mother had unilaterally moved to France with the child on March 8, 2022, without advising the father, despite the child being ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court found the motion urgent, citing established jurisprudence that child abductions are urgent matters and that self-help remedies are to be discouraged.

The mother failed to provide the required 60 days' notice of relocation under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the applicant leave to bring the urgent motion and set a schedule for materials and hearing.

Costs decision following a family law motion and cross-motion concerning interim custody and access arrangements for the parties’ children.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Family Law Rule 24(1) and the relative success of the parties.

Although both parties advanced positions that were ultimately close to the interim arrangement ordered, the court found the moving party had the true measure of success because the order reflected the recommendations of the custody and access assessor.

Considering that the responding party acted reasonably, made an offer to settle, and succeeded on some points, the court moderated the award.

Costs of $1,500 all-inclusive were ordered payable to the moving party.