Julie Guindon

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally relocated to France with their 16-month-old child without the father's consent.

The father brought an urgent motion for the child's return to Ottawa, while the mother sought permission to relocate, alleging family violence.

The court found insufficient evidence of family violence to justify the unilateral move and ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa, establishing a temporary parenting schedule.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order regarding two children, aged 12 and 14 months.

The children had been removed from the mother's care following incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse, and placed with relatives.

The mother sought the return of the children.

The court found that the parents had repeatedly breached voluntary services agreements and that there was a risk of harm to the children if returned to the mother's care.

The court ordered that the children remain in their current placements.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

The mother brought a motion to change a final Divorce Order made in Quebec, seeking sole custody, a change in the children's school, a reduced access schedule for the father, and adjustments to child support and special expenses.

She alleged material changes in circumstances, including the child's ADHD diagnosis and the father's relocation.

The court dismissed the motion to change the parenting schedule and school, finding no material change in circumstances had been established.

The court clarified the custodial arrangement as shared legal custody with divided final decision-making authority, declined to adjust base child support, and ordered proportionate sharing of special expenses with a cap on extracurricular activities.

Following a motion determining whether the applicant qualified as a spouse under the Succession Law Reform Act, the court addressed costs.

The applicant had been completely successful on the underlying legal issue concerning spousal status.

The court noted the issue was fact-driven but required review of relevant jurisprudence and was important to the parties.

No settlement offers were presented and no party acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The court fixed costs payable to the successful applicant at $7,892.95 inclusive of HST, payable from the estate.

The applicant sought a determination that she qualified as a “spouse” of the deceased under the Succession Law Reform Act in order to pursue dependant support from the estate.

The respondents, including the deceased’s children and estate, argued that the parties had not cohabited for the statutorily required three‑year period prior to death.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence concerning the duration and nature of the parties’ relationship, including the timing of the applicant’s move into the deceased’s home, financial arrangements, family interactions, and documentary records.

Applying the factors for determining a conjugal relationship articulated in Molodowich v. Penttinen, the court concluded that the parties began continuous cohabitation around May or June 2009.

As the deceased died in August 2012, the statutory three‑year requirement was met, and the applicant qualified as a spouse under s. 57 of the Succession Law Reform Act.