John Craig

The respondent brought a motion seeking relief for alleged breaches of court orders and non-compliance with disclosure rules under the Family Law Rules, and an unopposed order for non-party disclosure.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing compliance.

The court granted the unopposed non-party disclosure order for TD Waterhouse records, finding it relevant and proportional to equalization issues.

However, the court dismissed the balance of the respondent's motion, finding the additional disclosure requests excessive, unnecessary, irrelevant, and/or disproportionate, particularly those concerning the applicant's prior divorce, which were deemed a "fishing expedition." The court emphasized proportionality and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules in balancing full disclosure with efficiency.

Costs were reserved, with submissions to follow.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) declaration.

The OLRB had declared Enercare Home & Commercial Services Limited Partnership, Ganeh Energy Services Ltd., and Beaver Energy Services Ltd. to be related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but not Perras Mechanical Services Ltd. The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable for failing to consider bargaining history and collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and restored the OLRB's original decision.

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

Following an oral judgment ordering the resumption of contact between a parent and child, the court directed counsel to provide submissions or a consent agreement regarding the practical facilitation and early schedule for the contact.

The court scheduled a follow-up hearing in the event the parties could not agree.

The parties, who separated in 2017, brought competing motions to change a temporary shared parenting schedule and to determine which school their four-year-old child should attend.

Both parents sought primary residence or a change to the schedule.

The court dismissed both motions regarding the parenting schedule, finding neither party demonstrated a material change in circumstances or compelling evidence warranting an immediate change to the status quo.

On the issue of schooling, the court ordered the child to attend the public school in Angus proposed by the mother, finding it was in the child's best interests to attend a school closer to the mother's residence and to minimize exposure to parental conflict.

The applicant sought an order extending the limitation period for her equalization claim under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had prima facie grounds for relief, that her delay was incurred in good faith due to honest confusion about the limitation date and modest means, and that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the limitation period to February 12, 2020, the date the application was issued.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the motion.

The appellant displayed a sign reading "Trump is right.

Fuck China.

Fuck Mexico" in Grand View Plaza within Niagara Parks.

The Niagara Parks Police issued a summons for violations of section 2(9)(a) of Ontario Regulation 829 under the Niagara Parks Act, which prohibits abusive or insulting language that interferes with the use and enjoyment of the parks.

The appellant was also issued an oral trespass notice.

The application judge dismissed the constitutional challenge.

On appeal, the court held that while section 2(9)(a) does limit freedom of expression under the Charter, the limitation is justified under section 1.

However, the court found that the trespass notice was unconstitutional as applied to the appellant's political expression.

The parties sought a final determination of child and spousal support payable for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by way of a long motion.

The applicant father, a self-employed business owner, sought to have his income determined for support purposes, while the respondent mother argued he was unreasonably deducting personal expenses from his business income.

The court imputed income to the applicant by adding back portions of his claimed meals, telephone, vehicle, and home office expenses.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on forgiven student loans.

Although the court's income findings revealed that the applicant had significantly overpaid both child and spousal support under prior temporary orders, the court declined to order retroactive adjustments, finding that requiring the respondent to repay the amounts would cause undue hardship.

The applicant father moved for a temporary order for shared week-about parenting of the parties' 11-year-old child.

The respondent mother cross-moved for primary residence, child and spousal support, and an advance for interim disbursements under Rule 24(12).

The court granted the father's request for shared parenting, finding it in the child's best interests to maximize contact with both parents.

For interim support purposes, the court imputed the father's use of a company vehicle and medical benefits to his income, but declined to include retained corporate earnings without a business valuation.

The court also ordered the father to pay $25,000 to the mother as an advance for interim disbursements to level the playing field.

The parties sought a determination of custody, access, and child support for their 6-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo access schedule, while the respondent father sought a week-about shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, but increased the father's access time, finding that the father's poor conflict management skills and impulsive behaviour made an immediate week-about arrangement inappropriate.

For child support, the court imputed the self-employed father's income at $100,000, ordered $7,140 in arrears, and set ongoing support at $775 per month, reflecting that the new access schedule crossed the 40 percent shared parenting threshold.