Joshua J. Gleiberman

The applicant father brought a motion to resume his parenting time after it was suspended due to a series of unverified physical and sexual abuse allegations orchestrated by the respondent mother and her new partner.

The mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and for a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the mother's lack of insight, her partner's concerning criminal and mental health history, and the failure of child welfare agencies to adequately intervene.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion, ordered the resumption of the father's parenting time on a supervised basis, and directed the involvement of the children's aid society to support the family's reunification.

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.

Benjamin Cochrane, a beneficiary of a trust established after a childhood accident, brought a motion seeking the removal of his father, William Cochrane, as litigation guardian, the removal of his parents, William and Carol Cochrane, as trustees, an accounting of the trust, and compensation for alleged misappropriation.

The parents sought an adjournment, which was granted on terms.

The court removed William as litigation guardian, ordered William and Carol to provide a full accounting, and directed timely payment of annuity income to Benjamin.

Interim costs were awarded to Benjamin.

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.

The appellant home builder appealed a trial judgment dismissing its counterclaim against a developer and its negligence claim against Tarion Warranty Corporation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the developer, finding the trial judge failed to make necessary findings of fact and misapprehended a prior court order, necessitating a new trial.

However, the appeal against Tarion was dismissed, as the appellant's failure to file required financial statements for registration renewal was wilful, and Tarion's refusal to accept the late application was justified under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that permitting the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process because the appellant had already failed to obtain a remedy through her employer's complaint and grievance procedures.

The motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.