Jordan Robert Welsh

This motion concerned the adjournment of a 10-day family law trial primarily focused on parenting and child support.

The respondent mother sought the adjournment due to the applicant father's late disclosure of a significant change in his employment status.

The father opposed, arguing the change did not impact the main parenting issue.

The court granted the adjournment, acknowledging the court's inability to call the trial during scheduled sittings and the need to respect solicitor availability.

However, the mother's request for costs "thrown away" due to the late disclosure was dismissed, with the court deferring this to the trial judge and noting shared responsibility for systemic delays.

Mandatory questioning was ordered to resolve outstanding disclosure issues before any further settlement conference.

The applicant sought a temporary order to permit the relocation of the child, Cassidy Khan, to Orangeville, Ontario, from Brampton.

The respondent opposed the move, arguing it would disrupt the existing parenting schedule and reduce his time with the child.

The court, applying sections 24 and 39 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found that the relocation, driven by the applicant's need for stable and affordable housing, would not significantly impact the child's relationship with the respondent.

The court noted the parties' failure to formalize parenting arrangements despite the absence of major obstacles and approved a reconfigured parenting schedule that maintained the same number of overnights for the respondent.

The motion to permit relocation was granted, and the parties were ordered to negotiate a consent order for decision-making and a revised parenting schedule.

The applicant father brought a motion to temporarily vary a final parenting order, seeking immediate residential time with his 12-year-old daughter who had refused contact with him for eight months and was suffering from severe OCD.

He also sought to restrict the respondent mother's new partner from attending his parenting time and the children's appointments.

The court declined to force a change in the parenting schedule pending the completion of agreed-upon family reconciliation therapy, finding insufficient evidence to justify a sudden change.

However, the court ordered that the mother's partner not attend events where the father is present to reduce the children's exposure to loyalty conflicts and anxiety.

The appellant appealed an order awarding retroactive and prospective spousal support to the respondent.

The appellant argued the order was a nullity because it was made under the Divorce Act after being severed from a divorce order, and alternatively, that the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had attorned to divorce proceedings in Alabama.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the support order was properly made under the Family Law Act and that the application judge correctly determined he had jurisdiction.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought summary judgment for spousal support.

The respondent, having recently retained counsel, requested an adjournment, which was denied due to concerns that a foreign divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent in Alabama was an attempt to circumvent the Ontario court's jurisdiction over corollary relief.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and granted spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, considering the applicant's health issues and financial hardship.

Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded, and the claim for corollary relief was severed from the divorce claim.

Costs were also awarded to the applicant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to proceed with a motion to change a 2010 child support order and to reduce a 2012 security for costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed both requests without adequate explanation.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

The court determined that the appellant had established a prima facie case of change in circumstances warranting review of the child support order, including significant income reduction and bankruptcy.

The court allowed the appeal, granted leave to proceed with the motion to reduce security for costs, and reduced the security requirement from $59,500 to $10,000, enabling the appellant to pursue his motion to change the child support order.