Kateryna Yanovsky

On a motion to vary an interim parenting order, the moving party sought a step-up plan leading to equal parenting time for a child under three years old.

The court held that no material change in circumstances was required because the earlier interim order expressly provided for a review of parenting time after a few months.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, with particular attention to stability, the child's developmental needs, the parties' conflict, family violence concerns, and the child's adjustment to transitions, the court declined to order equal time-sharing.

The court nevertheless varied the schedule modestly by replacing the mid-week overnight with a Monday overnight in one week and adding Wednesday dinner visits in both weeks so the child would not go long stretches without seeing either parent.

The respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant father.

The court denied the motion for security for costs, finding that the mother had not met the onus to demonstrate that the father's claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, and that such orders are a blunt instrument to be used sparingly.

However, the court, troubled by the father's admitted non-compliance with previous temporary child support and costs orders, conditionally struck the father's child support claims pursuant to Family Law Rule 1(8).

The striking order would be stayed if the father brought himself into full compliance with all outstanding financial obligations by the next court date.

The parties separated after a long relationship.

The main issues involved the ownership and equalization of a property at 335 Penn Avenue, which the respondent purchased with inherited funds but later transferred into joint tenancy.

The court found that the respondent rebutted the presumption of joint ownership and held the property by way of a resulting trust.

However, because the property was a matrimonial home on the date of separation, its value was included in the equalization calculation.

The court ordered the applicant to pay occupation rent for his post-separation use of the home and to contribute to their child's post-secondary education expenses.

After setting off these amounts against the equalization payment, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $63,696.

The father brought a motion seeking primary care of the parties’ child after the child had temporarily resided with him during the mother’s attempt to relocate for employment.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return to her care pending determination of the father’s motion to change an earlier custody order.

The court found that the prior final order granting the mother sole custody represented the legal status quo and that the temporary residence arrangement with the father was intended to be temporary under the parties’ agreement.

Applying the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded the child should return to the mother’s care until the motion to change is determined on the merits.

The respondent was successful on a motion preventing the applicant from moving their two children outside of Barrie.

The respondent sought costs of $3,531.25 under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court fixed costs at $1,000, payable at $100 per month, noting that while the applicant's decision to move for employment and lower rent was reasonable in other circumstances, it was not practicable given the children's best interests.