Lauren McMurtry

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision finding her inadmissible for five years due to misrepresentation.

The applicant's immigration consultant had defrauded her, provided her with a fraudulent passport request letter, and blocked her access to the online portal, leading to her missing a procedural fairness letter.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness and held the decision was reasonable, noting that applicants bear the burden of ensuring truthful applications, even when relying on a consultant.

The applicant and respondents, who are brothers, are involved in a dispute over the management of their mother's property and competing powers of attorney.

A fourth brother, who is not a party to the application, brought a motion for intervenor status and interim financial assistance, arguing he relied on his mother for financial support and housing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed intervenor had no legal interest in the subject matter of the application, would not be adversely affected by its outcome, and shared no common questions of law or fact.

Furthermore, adding him as a party two weeks before the scheduled hearing would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The request for interim financial assistance was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the proposed intervenor but deferred against his potential inheritance.

The court reviewed interim custody and access arrangements for the child, C.B., following the failure of an American psychologist to complete a court-ordered assessment and the subsequent adjournment of the trial.

The court ordered the child's return to Ottawa for school in January 2019, with revised parenting time arrangements, acknowledging the applicant's travel limitations and the respondent's unwillingness to cross the border.

The trial was adjourned to May 2019 as a priority matter.

This motion concerned temporary parenting arrangements for a child, C.B., pending trial, specifically whether she should be returned to Ottawa from St. Louis, Missouri.

The respondent father sought the child's immediate return and re-establishment of his parenting time, which had been disrupted by withdrawn criminal charges against him.

The applicant mother sought to keep the child in St. Louis, proposing significant access for the father.

The court found a change in circumstances due to the withdrawn charges and the mother's inability to travel due to pregnancy.

While acknowledging concerns about potential parental alienation, the court decided against abruptly removing the child from the mother's care given the approaching trial and the need for a clinical assessment.

The child was permitted to remain in St. Louis temporarily, with a detailed schedule for the father's parenting time, including monthly visits in Ottawa and additional holiday time, with travel costs borne by the applicant.

The court also ordered an expedited update to the OCL report and a s. 30 assessment by a psychologist, with the applicant's proposed psychologist conditionally accepted.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $55,927.42 for a case conference and two motions, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent regarding jurisdiction and financial disclosure.

The court declined to make a finding of bad faith but awarded substantial indemnity costs for a motion where the respondent needlessly revived a jurisdiction issue.

Recognizing divided success on other issues, including retroactive support and parenting, the court fixed total costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $24,712.05 for fees and $6,261.53 for disbursements, which included the reasonable expense of retaining an accounting expert.

The Applicant sought various relief, primarily an order for ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support, a parenting schedule for their son, and full financial disclosure from the Respondent.

The court declined to sanction the Respondent for disclosure issues, finding his pursuit of jurisdiction not in bad faith and sufficient information provided for support issues.

The parenting schedule was adjourned due to insufficient evidence.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support from July 1, 2016, calculating amounts based on the parties' incomes and applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting the high-income payor principles.

The Respondent's cash flow arguments were rejected, emphasizing support obligations over personal acquisitions.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, permission to relocate, and child support, initiating proceedings after the respondent father unilaterally retained the child from daycare.

The father sought enforcement of a separation agreement for shared custody with alternating weeks, or an equal time schedule, and disclosure regarding the mother's mental health.

The court dismissed the father's mental health allegations as unproven and condemned his self-help remedy.

On an interim-interim basis, the court ordered joint custody with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and set an expedited case conference, deferring final determinations on custody, relocation, and the validity of the separation agreement.