Judith Birchall

The parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

A motion review and new motion concerning child access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought to continue virtual video access only, citing the respondent's criminal charges and the enhanced health risks to one child who has Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

The respondent opposed the suspension of face-to-face access and sought modification of other restrictions.

The court found that the child's serious genetic condition placed her at enhanced risk from COVID-19 exposure and that the respondent's recent criminal charges and ongoing drug dependency issues, combined with his dismissal of the child's medical vulnerability, undermined his ability to adequately protect the child.

The court suspended face-to-face access temporarily in favour of virtual contact pending further order or written agreement of the parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant, Jennifer Tovell, for child support and a successful opposition to the respondent, Douglas Jamieson's, cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found Mr. Jamieson's conduct unreasonable, including providing false and misleading evidence and failing to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which amounted to bad faith.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Tovell costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $8,702.41, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, enforceable as support.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody, retroactive child support, and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found that the father's history of controlling behaviour and failure to pay support weighed against joint custody.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to 35% of the time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, ongoing table support, and 50% of the children's section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then addressed the costs of the leave application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The applicant was ordered to pay $17,253.00 in full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $36,912.82 arising from four motions in a contentious divorce proceeding.

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the procedural rules for leave applications, including failing to file transcripts and the underlying reasons for the decision.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's costs award.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and seeking placement in the care of their father subject to supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking custody of both children and suspension of the father's access.

The court found that the children had suffered emotional harm as a result of high-conflict parenting and the mother's mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on either the protection finding or the appropriate disposition.

The children were placed in the father's care with supervised access to the mother, with specific terms addressing the mother's mental health treatment, alcohol abuse aftercare, and a re-unification assessment and counselling process for the older child.

The applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim spousal support order and for a stay of the award.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, considering late-filed materials, and awarding retrospective support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.