Kyle Christopher Mason Costa

The parties, Meghan Ruth Gorman (mother) and Terri Richard Gorman (father), separated in 2018.

The mother sought to relocate the children from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste.

Marie, along with orders for decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The father, self-represented, opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother failed to provide proper notice of relocation under the amended Children's Law Reform Act, and therefore the onus remained on her to prove the move was in the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their happiness with the current arrangements, strong relationship with the father, and existing support networks in Thunder Bay.

The court established a divided decision-making framework, adjusted parenting time to allow for parental contact, and ordered child support from the father.

Conditional spousal support was also ordered for the mother if she pursues a personal support worker program.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

Paternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to a Status Review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The grandparents had care and custody of their grandson by court order and sought full party status to participate in the proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society and Children's Lawyer consented, but the mother opposed.

The court found that the grandparents were statutory parties under section 79 of the CYFSA as they had lawful custody of the child, and therefore the motion was redundant.

The court granted the order recognizing their party status and set timelines for service and filing of materials.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of his seven-year-old son after the respondent mother left the family home with the child and withheld him from school.

The mother sought interim custody, alleging verbal and emotional abuse, while the father sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found no evidence that either parent lacked the ability to act as a parent or that the child did not have strong ties to both.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court ordered the child to be returned to school and implemented a temporary shared parenting schedule where each parent has care of the child for five nights.

The applicant sought a divorce, retroactive spousal support, and an unequal division of net family property in an uncontested hearing.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the divorce and ordered retroactive spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes, declining to impute income to the respondent for periods he was on unpaid sick leave due to alcohol dependency.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and a division of the respondent's pension at source.

The court also ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act, finding it would be unconscionable to require the applicant to pay an equalization payment after she depleted her RRSPs to maintain the matrimonial home.