Julie I. Guindon

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules for the return of his 16-month-old daughter to Ottawa.

The respondent mother had unilaterally moved to France with the child on March 8, 2022, without advising the father, despite the child being ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court found the motion urgent, citing established jurisprudence that child abductions are urgent matters and that self-help remedies are to be discouraged.

The mother failed to provide the required 60 days' notice of relocation under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the applicant leave to bring the urgent motion and set a schedule for materials and hearing.

The appellant brought a motion on the day of the appeal hearing to remove counsel for the respondent from the record and to strike a paragraph from an affidavit dated January 9, 2017.

The appellant also requested an adjournment of the appeal to permit cross-examination of the respondent on his affidavit.

The court rejected the adjournment request and declined to hear the motion due to insufficient notice, having been filed on the same day as the appeal hearing.

The appeal proceeded as scheduled and the appellant's motion was dismissed with costs awarded to counsel for the respondent.

L'appelante a interjeté appel d'une décision de la Cour supérieure la déclarant coupable d'outrage au tribunal pour non-respect d'ordonnances relatives à la résidence de l'enfant.

Elle a contesté la décision en alléguant que les ordonnances avaient été obtenues par fraude et que les juges n'avaient pas compétence.

La Cour d'appel a rejeté ces arguments, confirmant que les ordonnances demeuraient en vigueur et que la peine imposée était raisonnable.

The applicant sought spousal support and division of family property.

A motion for interim relief was brought, which was settled by consent order on October 18, 2016, reserving costs.

The applicant sought $27,500 in costs, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded or that the amount was exaggerated.

The court found the applicant's motion reasonable and necessary due to the respondent's conduct and insufficient disclosure of income.

The applicant's offer to settle also entitled her to full indemnity costs from August 24, 2016.

The court awarded the applicant $27,500 in costs.

The court addressed the parties' inability to agree on an expert to prepare a Voice of the Child (VOC) Report for their 14-year-old son, Kent, as previously ordered.

After considering submissions from both the applicant mother and respondent father, the court appointed Janet Claridge, a neutral third-party expert, to prepare the VOC report.

The decision emphasized the importance of expert neutrality, rejecting candidates with prior involvement in the family's case due to potential bias.

The parties were ordered to equally share the costs of the report.

Le père a présenté une motion et la mère une motion reconventionnelle concernant la garde des enfants, l'horaire de résidence, les voyages, le transport, la garderie, l'évaluation orthophonique d'un enfant, l'aide psychologique pour l'autre enfant et la présence des enfants à un accouchement.

La Cour a maintenu le statu quo pour l'horaire de résidence et la garde par les grands-parents maternels, a ordonné l'évaluation orthophonique de Sara par le CHEO, et a rejeté les demandes d'aide psychologique pour Emma et l'ordonnance concernant l'accouchement.

La Cour a également précisé que la mère n'avait pas besoin d'une ordonnance pour critiquer le rapport d'expert, la recevabilité étant une question pour le juge du procès.

Following settlement of family law issues prior to a settlement conference, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

The applicant argued the respondent negotiated unreasonably throughout the litigation, causing delays and unnecessary legal expenses, while the respondent contended that the applicant prolonged the matter and rejected reasonable settlement offers.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court examined the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of settlement positions, and the progression of mediation and negotiations.

The court found the applicant consistently attempted to resolve the dispute reasonably and that the respondent could have avoided litigation by accepting earlier proposals.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.