Julie Zimmerman

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the parenting schedule, child support, and section 7 expenses for their two children.

The respondent father sought a week-about shared parenting schedule, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that a week-about schedule was not in the children's best interests pending trial, but granted the father one additional overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the Guidelines.

The court also resolved minor disputes regarding extracurricular activities and sports equipment.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence of the three children, final decision-making authority, and supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for equal parenting time, joint decision-making, and an order permitting both parties to reside in the home until sold.

The court dismissed the mother's request for exclusive possession due to lack of urgency, allowing both parties to reside in the home temporarily.

The court granted the mother temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority as she was the primary caregiver.

The court denied the mother's request for supervised contact and the father's request for equal parenting time, ordering unsupervised contact for the father of at least six hours per week plus daily remote contact.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school enrolment from Palgrave to Uxbridge following her unilateral relocation, or alternatively, to have the children attend school online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought an order that the children continue attending their current school in person.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no compelling evidence to rebut the presumption that in-person attendance is in the children's best interests.

The court also held that it was premature to order a change in the school district before pleadings were exchanged and a parenting schedule was determined, ordering the children to continue attending their current school in person.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to comply with access and counselling provisions of a prior consent order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody, flexible access based on the child's wishes, and restrictions on the father's communications.

The court found the mother in contempt, ruling that her permissiveness empowered the child to disregard the order, and that a parent has a positive obligation to ensure compliance.

The mother's requests for sole custody and flexible access were denied, as they would curtail the father-child relationship.

However, some communication restrictions on the father were granted, with amendments, and made mutual where appropriate.

The mother was ordered to purge her contempt.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support.

Although the applicant mother's motion to change was dismissed on the merits, the court awarded her costs due to the respondent father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide required financial disclosure, unilaterally reducing child support payments, refusing to contribute to special and extraordinary expenses, and refusing to engage in mediation.

The mother obtained substantially all relief sought through her comprehensive offer to settle.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of HST, representing close to full recovery, to sanction the father's unreasonable behaviour and encourage compliance with court orders and separation agreement obligations.

Motion to Change regarding a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007.

The applicant (mother) sought financial disclosure from the respondent (father), retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2012, and an order fixing arrears and special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the claims and sought retroactive readjustment claiming overpayment of child support.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide required annual financial disclosure and drew negative inferences from his conduct.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a significant or long-lasting change in the respondent's financial circumstances.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's share of retroactive special expenses and costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide disclosure.