Kathryn A. Junger

The respondent father brought an emergency motion for custody or joint custody and equal time-sharing of the parties' 21-month-old daughter.

The applicant mother had suspended the father's access based on allegations of sexual abuse related to a diaper rash.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and found no child protection concerns.

The court found the mother's allegations were unfounded and jumped to dubious conclusions.

The court ordered a temporary regime of up to 50% time-sharing for the father, based on his rotating employment schedule, to maximize the child's involvement with each parent.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding child custody and the language of instruction, and requested written submissions on costs.

The appellant argued he was successful on the critical issue of the importance of the children's language of instruction, despite the appeal being dismissed due to the children having remained in French immersion for three additional years.

The respondent argued she was entirely successful and sought $25,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court applied the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, but reduced the respondent's award to $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis to reflect the appellant's partial success in demonstrating an error by the trial judge.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the parties' three children to the respondent mother.

The father argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider ordering the children to attend a homogeneous French-language school as a condition of custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did err in failing to consider such a condition, as the language of education is an important factor in the children's best interests.

However, the Court declined to order a change of schools on appeal, concluding that given the passage of time, it would no longer be in the children's best interests to disrupt their current education in a French immersion program.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed orders of a motion judge, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction to determine issues at a hearing because he was functus officio, and lacked jurisdiction to address costs due to delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was not functus because the formal order had not been issued.

The court also rejected claims of bias and found no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment regarding pension valuation, investment ownership, spousal support, retroactive spousal support, matrimonial home valuation, and the terms of the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determinations of spousal support, pension valuation, or property issues.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding retroactive spousal support, as the trial judge failed to advert to the governing considerations or explain the calculation, remitting this issue to the trial judge.

The Court also remitted the terms of the equalization payment and non-depletion order if the parties could not agree.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment regarding pension valuation, investment ownership, spousal support, retroactive spousal support, matrimonial home valuation, and the terms of an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on pension valuation, investments, ongoing spousal support of $1700 per month, and the matrimonial home valuation.

However, the Court found the trial judge failed to explain the basis for awarding $30,000 in retroactive spousal support and remitted that issue to the trial judge.

The Court also set aside the terms regarding the equalization payment and non-depletion order, remitting them to the trial judge if the parties cannot agree.