Joshua J. Gleiberman

The parties disputed the costs of previous motions regarding their child's parenting schedule and school enrollment, in which the respondent father was successful.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reduced because the respondent refused to mediate the dispute.

The court found the respondent's refusal to mediate was not unreasonable given the applicant's insistence on including her proposed relocation in the mediation.

Conversely, the court found the applicant acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the child in a new school and withholding parenting time.

The court awarded the respondent his costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $9,613.48.

The parties separated and the applicant mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Mississauga to Etobicoke, enrolling the child in a new school.

The respondent father brought a motion to have the child returned to her previous school in Mississauga and for a shared parenting schedule.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability by returning to her previous school in Mississauga.

The court ordered a temporary 4-3/3-4 shared parenting schedule and appointed an assessor to conduct a section 30 assessment.

The applicant brought a motion for an interim distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, disclosure of her 17-year-old son's address, and severance of the divorce from corollary relief.

The respondent opposed the distribution, arguing the funds should be held as security for child support and to prevent the applicant from funding vexatious litigation.

The court granted the interim distribution, finding sufficient funds would remain in trust to secure any potential child support obligations.

The court also ordered the respondent to disclose the son's address, as the child had not withdrawn from parental control.

The remaining issues were adjourned.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent father brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the applicant mother to his doctor and his former solicitor.

The father argued the evidence was protected by doctor-patient confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege.

The court quashed the summons for the doctor, noting the father consented to releasing the requested prescription records, making the doctor's attendance unnecessary.

However, the court upheld the summons for the solicitor, finding the father had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by summarizing and relying on the legal advice in his sworn statements to explain his failure to seek access to his child.