Justice A. C. Trousdale

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to permit him to relocate the residence of the two children from Kingston to Kitchener.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement in Kingston.

The father sought to move due to a change in employment and to be closer to family.

Applying the relocation provisions of the amended Divorce Act, the court found that the father did not meet the burden of proving the relocation was in the best interests of the children, as it would significantly disrupt their lives and drastically decrease their time with the respondent mother.

The motion to relocate was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in Kingston.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order compelling the respondent, who resides in Australia, to undergo DNA paternity testing regarding her 17-year-old child.

The respondent opposed, citing the applicant's delay in bringing the application and his privacy rights.

The court held that while it cannot compel the respondent to undergo testing, it has jurisdiction to grant leave to obtain a DNA test and draw adverse inferences if he refuses.

The court granted leave, finding that DNA testing provides the best evidence of paternity and that delay or privacy concerns do not override the need for this evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2008 consent order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations due to his planned retirement at age 62, his remarriage, and the applicant's re-partnering and turning 65.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in support based on the respondent's post-separation income increases.

The court found that the respondent's voluntary retirement, the applicant's age, and the parties' new relationships did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim for retroactive support, noting the support was needs-based.

Both the motion to change and the request for retroactive increase were dismissed.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order to terminate his $1,500 monthly spousal support obligation and life insurance requirement, citing his voluntary retirement at age 65 and resulting income reduction.

The court found his retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, recognizing the responding party's compensatory claims from a 25-year marriage where she stayed home to raise four children, the court declined to terminate support entirely.

Instead, spousal support was reduced to $1.00 per month effective July 1, 2016, and the life insurance obligation was maintained to secure potential future support.

Following a successful motion to change where the applicant obtained sole custody and permission to relocate the child, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $34,000, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the respondent.

The court found the respondent's defence of the status quo was not unreasonable or in bad faith.

Considering the divided success on some minor issues and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer refusals from his examination for discovery, including questions about legal advice he received regarding a Highway Traffic Act charge and questions about his criminal record.

The court found that the defendant partially waived solicitor-client privilege by testifying that he pleaded guilty to the traffic charge solely because his lawyer told him to do so, and ordered specific disclosure of the lawyer's file.

However, the court dismissed the request for the defendant's criminal record, finding it irrelevant to the pleadings and directed solely to credibility.