J. Feldman

The respondent, John Kenyon, brought an urgent motion to reinstate his parenting time with his child, RK, after it was suspended due to non-compliance with Soberlink alcohol testing protocols and outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kenyon’s breaches of multiple court orders, failure to pay costs, and lack of full and frank disclosure when seeking leave to bring the motion were significant.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the duty of candour in ex parte motions.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, Rachel Ross.

The Applicant sought to remove the Respondent's counsel, Mr. Salvatore Mannella, from the record, alleging he was a key witness regarding the Respondent's alleged non-disclosure in a previous separation agreement proceeding and had intimate knowledge of family businesses.

The Respondent opposed, arguing privilege, availability of evidence from other sources, and prematurity.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, emphasizing the reluctance to interfere with choice of counsel, the privileged nature of the information sought, and the availability of alternative disclosure methods.

Following a 17-year marriage, the parties engaged in high-conflict litigation primarily driven by the mother's unreasonable expectations and alienation of the children from the father.

The court determined the date of separation and resolved outstanding financial issues, including child support, spousal support, equalization, and a trust claim.

The father was ordered to pay table child support, while the mother, who earned significantly more, was ordered to pay non-compensatory spousal support based on the Custodial Payor model of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The mother's claim for an equitable trust interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $25,000 to the father.

On competing interim motions in a family law proceeding, the responding party sought temporary sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child support, and an interim disbursement, while the other party sought a nesting arrangement allowing the children to remain in the home with parents alternating residence weekly.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Family Law Act and the practical implications of a nesting arrangement, including cost, housing availability, and stability for the children.

The court found the proposed nesting arrangement impractical and potentially destabilizing, particularly due to financial strain and the likely loss of a long-standing caregiver.

Balancing the statutory factors and the children’s interests, the court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home while maintaining interim joint custody and equal parenting time.