Kristen Normandin

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed an interlocutory order requiring disclosure of income tax returns and a sworn financial statement in the context of a motion to set aside a 2015 separation agreement that capped his income for support calculations at $1 million per year and included a non-disclosure clause.

The respondent wife moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the substantive issue of the separation agreement's enforceability, but rather was a procedural disclosure order.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant father sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent mother opposed, citing the child's well-being and her financial situation, and also brought a motion to strike parts of the father's affidavit.

The court granted the father's motion for partition and sale, finding that the mother had not demonstrated prejudice to her rights or the child's needs sufficient to deny the prima facie right to sale.

The mother's motion to strike evidence was dismissed.

The court heard multiple interim motions in a family law dispute between unmarried parents concerning temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, school selection, parenting time, and a request for a custody assessment.

The court fixed child support based on the father's estimated 2013 income and ordered interim spousal support within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, while allocating section 7 expenses proportionately.

The court permitted the child to attend the school selected by the mother and ordered a modest increase in the father’s parenting time consistent with recommendations from the parties’ mediator.

The father's motion for a custody assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act was dismissed, as the parties had already agreed to obtain expert input from their mediator if necessary.

Costs were denied on the basis that success on the motions was divided.

The mother appealed a trial decision that awarded her custody of the parties' twin children conditional on her return to Sudbury from Mississauga.

The mother also appealed various support orders, including the imputation of income, the termination of child support for an adult child, and the structure of retirement-period spousal support.

The father cross-appealed the retirement-period spousal support and the calculation of section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's application of the Gordon v. Goertz relocation framework or the support determinations.

The Court did, however, vary the trial judge's order to secure the mother's retirement-period spousal support against the father's pension in the event of his death, and adjusted the mechanics of the custody transfer and support arrears to account for the passage of time.

A separated father sought an order that the child reside primarily with him after the mother relocated from Toronto to Sutton without prior discussion, contrary to the cooperative expectations in a joint parenting arrangement under a separation agreement.

The agreement required both parties to reside within the "GTA" but did not define that term.

Applying the mobility analysis from Gordon v. Goertz as modified in Berry v. Berry for cases involving two custodial parents, the court assessed the child’s best interests, including the existing parenting arrangement, maximizing contact with both parents, and potential disruption to the child.

Although the court criticized the mother’s failure to communicate the relocation decision, it concluded that parental conduct did not demonstrate an inability to meet the child’s needs.

Considering continuity of care and the impending transition to school, the court determined that the child’s best interests slightly favoured residing primarily with the mother in Sutton with expanded parenting time for the father.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage with four children.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate the children to Mississauga, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court granted sole custody to the mother but prohibited the relocation of the twins, emphasizing the maximum contact principle and the children's established ties in Sudbury.

The court imputed additional income to the father for child and spousal support purposes.

The mother's claim for a constructive trust over the father's pension, which survived his bankruptcy, was denied because the bankruptcy statute provided a juristic reason for the enrichment.

However, the court ordered the father to pay periodic spousal support upon his retirement to account for the pension's value.

The parties separated and signed Minutes of Settlement regarding the family business.

The husband sold the business years later and refused to pay the wife her share, arguing her rights expired after four years under paragraph 5 of the Minutes.

The trial judge found the paragraph ambiguous, admitted parol evidence, and ruled in favour of the wife.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the provision was ambiguous and her use of parol evidence to determine the parties' intentions.