Joanna Hunt-Jones

This motion concerned the appropriate school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old daughter, Nyla, for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed Rose Avenue Junior Public School in downtown Toronto, near the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother proposed Crestview Public School in North York, near her residence where the child spends the majority of her time.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering factors such as primary caregiver, stability, support networks, and commute times for the child, found in favour of the respondent mother's proposed school.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and a preservation order.

The parties cohabited for a short period and had one child.

The applicant argued the respondent's declared income of $140,400 did not match his lavish lifestyle, which included luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive watches.

The court imputed an income of $400,000 to the respondent based on a lifestyle analysis and unexplained cash expenditures.

The court also imputed $50,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,553 per month, table child support of $3,099 per month, and granted a preservation order over the respondent's condominium and investment accounts due to a real risk of dissipation.

The father was awarded sole custody of the parties' child and permitted to relocate to Oregon after a trial where the mother presented forged documents and fled to India mid-proceeding.

The mother appealed the trial decision.

The father brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal, and the mother brought a cross-motion for a stay of the judgment pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the father's motion, finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious, and ordered the mother to post $30,000 in security.

The mother's motion for a stay was dismissed as she failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that had set aside an arbitrator's award regarding parenting and custody.

The arbitrator had conducted an eight-day hearing on a parenting plan review and awarded custody to the mother, permitting her to relocate the children from Toronto to Guelph to attend a specialized school.

The appeal judge found the arbitration process was fundamentally unfair because the father did not receive adequate notice of the mother's intent to move.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator's award, finding that the proceedings were fair, the father acquiesced in the notice by not objecting during the hearing, and the best interests of the children in crisis outweighed procedural concerns raised only on appeal.