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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment granting joint custody of their two children and ordering him to pay child and spousal support to the respondent mother.

The father argued the trial judge erred by focusing on the mother's rehabilitation from substance abuse rather than the children's best interests, and by improperly admitting expert testimony from the mother's treating physician regarding her parenting ability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the best interests of the child test, correctly admitted the expert evidence under the Mohan framework, and appropriately considered the statutory factors for spousal support.