Joseph P. Hamon

The applicant father sought a temporary order requiring the respondent mother to return the children's residence to Innisfil, Ontario, or, alternatively, to transfer primary care of the children to him in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

This motion was brought following the mother's unilateral relocation with the children to Petawawa, Ontario, which the father argued constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that while the mother's move was a material change, it was not in the children's best interests to disrupt their new settled environment.

The court considered the factors from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, noting the mother's new family unit, improved financial stability, and the delay in the father's application.

The court concluded there was a strong probability the mother's position would prevail at trial.

This costs decision followed a trial addressing pension equalization, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and medical expenses.

The court found success to be mixed, but the Applicant (Wife) was marginally more successful overall, despite her unreasonable conduct regarding the pension equalization.

The Respondent (Husband) was unsuccessful on a motion to amend his Answer.

Neither party fully achieved their offers to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties' conduct, offers, complexity, and proportionality of legal fees, noting the Husband's disproportionately high costs.

The Husband was ordered to pay the Wife $7,500 plus HST and disbursements of $671 plus HST.

The applicant sought to terminate a testamentary trust created by his grandfather, remove his uncle as estate trustee, compel a passing of accounts, and obtain a declaration of his right to use the estate's farm property.

The court found that the applicant held only a contingent interest in the trust fund and a vested future interest in the farm property, which did not grant him a present right to possession or use.

The court dismissed the requests to terminate the trust, remove the trustee, and compel a formal passing of accounts, but ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with copies of the existing accounting records.