Joseph A. Di Iorio

The respondent brought multiple motions in a family law proceeding involving equalization, trust claims, and spousal support.

The court addressed the jurisdiction of an Associate Judge, granted an order adding the respondent's parents as parties given their financial interest in a Cornwall property purchased with their funds but registered in the parties' names.

The court denied the respondent's request to deem apartment-related payments as interim spousal support, as no spousal support order or agreement existed.

Access to the matrimonial home for retrieval of personal belongings was granted, as was an order to confirm the contents of and close a joint safety deposit box.

The court also ordered the applicant to provide outstanding financial disclosure within 14 days, with trial scheduled for May 2026.

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and temporary decision-making authority for the parties' 16-month-old child, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and unsupervised parenting time.

Both parties alleged abusive conduct and mental health issues against the other.

The court found cogent evidence that the child's safety was at risk in the mother's unsupervised care due to her mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and blackouts.

The court granted the father temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time and undergo a psychological evaluation.

The applicant father sought an interim order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating their two children to Nova Scotia.

The mother sought an interim order permitting the relocation and for child support.

The parties separated following an altercation, and the mother moved to Nova Scotia where she had secured employment.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors, the court found that the mother was the primary caregiver, the move was in good faith, and the children wished to relocate.

The court permitted the interim relocation, finding a strong probability the mother would prevail at trial, and ordered the father to pay $639 per month in child support.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's evidence consisted of bare denials and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting deficits.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted summary judgment, making the children Crown wards with access at the society's discretion.