Kamla O. Lewis

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a mother's application to relocate with her child to Brazil, the associated parenting arrangements, and retroactive child support adjustments.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the shared parenting arrangement, the parents' respective caregiving roles, and the impact of relocation on the child’s well-being.

The court denied the relocation, finding the mother failed to meet the onus to prove it was in the child's best interests.

The decision also includes detailed analysis of income imputation for both parents, application of the Child Support Guidelines including section 9 for shared parenting, and retroactive child support adjustments based on effective notice and financial disclosure principles.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties’ child to the Newmarket jurisdiction and for related parenting relief after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Kitchener/Waterloo and enrolled him in a new school without the father's consent.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the child's primary residence to remain in Newmarket, continued attendance at his former school, and established an equal parenting time schedule.

The court found the mother's allegations of family violence insufficient to justify the relocation at this preliminary stage and emphasized the child's best interests and stability.

Costs were awarded to the father.

This trial determined whether funds advanced by the respondent grandparents to the applicant mother and respondent father during their marriage constituted a gift or a loan for the purpose of property equalization.

The applicant argued the funds were a gift, while the respondents contended they were a loan.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut it.

The court also considered factors for determining a loan, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan based on the grandparents' financial circumstances, their expectation of repayment, and evidence of partial repayments.

The applicant's testimony was found inconsistent and not credible.

Following a consent order resolving a motion that sought to dismiss the respondent’s claim and strike his pleadings for failure to comply with a temporary order, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The consent order provided that the respondent would pay the costs of the motion either as agreed or as ordered by the court.

The court considered the parties’ submissions, including allegations of non‑compliance with prior court orders, issues surrounding scheduling and counsel availability, and the existence of an offer to settle.

While satisfied that costs should be awarded to the applicant and that the claimed hourly rates and time spent were reasonable, the court declined to order full indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at a lump sum of $4,500 inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the child with primary residence continuing with the applicant, alternate weekend access for the respondent, shared holidays, child support based on imputed income, and costs.

The respondent opposed the motion and requested a trial on all issues.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment motion.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, confirmed alternate weekend access for the respondent, established a detailed holiday sharing arrangement, set child support at $160 per month based on an imputed annual income of $20,000, and fixed arrears at $2,000 as of September 1, 2012.