Lauren C. Blanchet

The decision addresses two contested issues in a family law motion: (1) whether income should be imputed to the Respondent, Shannon Turner Zaharia, for the purpose of determining temporary child support, and (2) whether the proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned property at 86 Woodland Crescent, Petawawa, Ontario, should be paid out to the parties or held in trust pending further order.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent at this interim stage, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds from the sale of the property be held in trust pending further order or agreement, given the outstanding determination of equalization entitlement.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, Ontario, and for disclosure of Family and Children’s Services records.

The respondent mother opposed, having unilaterally relocated the child to Grafton, Ontario, citing safety concerns and alleged abuse by the father.

The court found the respondent failed to provide proper notice of relocation as required by the Divorce Act and that her allegations of abuse were not sufficiently corroborated to excuse this requirement.

Applying the best interests of the child framework under the Divorce Act and principles from Plumley v. Plumley, the court ordered the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the child's accustomed routine and relationship with both parents.

Disclosure of FCSRC records was also ordered.

The defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, seeking the return of a service dog, Briggs, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff was not the dog's owner.

The plaintiff opposed, citing incomplete discovery and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fair and just adjudication required a trial due to credibility issues and a deficient record, especially given the constraints of simplified procedure rules which limit pre-trial proceedings like cross-examinations.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to return the child's residence to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and for orders regarding equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking to maintain the child's residence in Westmeath and for sole decision-making.

The court declined to order the child's return to the GTA, finding the mother's initial relocation was not intended to be permanent and the father had acquiesced by delaying his motion.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to preserve his relationship with the child but did not grant the mother sole decision-making, instead ordering joint decision-making on major issues.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the established status quo in Westmeath.