Laurie Heather Pawlitza

The applicant brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' four children, alleging the respondent withheld them contrary to an existing consent order.

The respondent sought to impose a condition prohibiting the children from having contact with the applicant's current partner's children due to COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate an increased health risk and that the applicant's blended family, despite maintaining separate residences, could constitute a "household" for public health guideline purposes.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original parenting schedule without the additional condition sought by the respondent.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

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 applicant mother brought a motion for the appointment of a parenting coordinator, interim and retroactive spousal support, and life insurance as security for support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to extend an access visit for one day to celebrate a religious holiday.

The court granted the father's cross-motion, finding no reason to condition it on the mother's requests.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a parenting coordinator, stating it was not required for an existing access protocol.

Interim spousal support was awarded to the mother at the low end of the SSAG range ($7,500/month), and the father was ordered to arrange life insurance as security.

Retroactive spousal support was reserved for trial.