Joseph Powers

The father brought a motion for a temporary order to return their child, Owen, to his habitual residence in Barrie, alleging the mother's unilateral move to Guelph constituted unlawful self-help.

The mother brought a cross-motion for a temporary order that Owen reside primarily with her in Guelph.

The court found the mother's self-help justified due to unique circumstances, including financial constraints and an untenable living situation with the father's parents.

Considering the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court favored the mother's parenting plan due to its sustainability and her primary caregiver role.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's motion was granted, establishing primary residence in Guelph, a specific access schedule for the father, child support, and a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Costs were not awarded, as the father's motion was deemed reasonable.

Costs decision following a family law proceeding concerning recognition in Ontario of an Alberta parenting order requiring the return of a child and equal parenting time.

The court had previously declined to recognize the Alberta order.

Although the respondent was substantially successful and had made a settlement offer similar to the court’s ultimate decision, the court considered the conduct of both parties.

The applicant’s litigation conduct was criticized, but the respondent’s unilateral relocation with the child from Alberta to Ontario contributed to the dispute.

Balancing these considerations under Family Law Rule 24 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court departed from the presumption that the successful party receive costs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in a shared custody arrangement.

The respondent mother argued that the applicant was intentionally underemployed and that income should be imputed to him at a higher level.

Applying the test from AMD v. AJP, the court found the applicant was intentionally underemployed and imputed income of $75,000 to him.

However, given factual disputes regarding standards of living and the imminent trial process, the court declined to make interim or retroactive child support orders.

The issues were held to be more appropriately determined at trial.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta custody and parenting order requiring the return of the parties’ child to Alberta and providing for shared parenting time.

The court considered s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act governing recognition of extra‑provincial custody orders and whether the respondent had received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Alberta proceeding.

The court found the respondent had not been given reasonable notice and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also concluded that the Alberta order appeared to have been made without sufficient consideration of the child’s best interests and was therefore contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court refused recognition of the Alberta order and held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody and access due to the child’s habitual residence in Ontario resulting from undue delay in enforcement proceedings.