Daniel Dominitz

The applicant father and respondent mother brought interim motions regarding the principal residence of their two children.

The father sought residence in Elliot Lake, and the mother in Sudbury.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Divorce Act, including stability, past care, and parental plans.

The court found the father's plan for residence in Elliot Lake to be more established and in the children's best interest, citing the children's stronger connection to Elliot Lake, the oldest child's school stability, and concerns about the mother's past instability.

The father was granted primary care, with the mother receiving specified parenting time and shared holidays.

In a family law motion, the moving party sought contempt findings, imprisonment, fines, preservation orders, financial disclosure, and temporary spousal support based on extensive allegations of perjury, forgery, asset concealment, and theft.

The court held that civil contempt requires breach of a live or operative court order and dismissed all contempt-related relief because none of the alleged misconduct was tied to any operative order in the proceeding.

The court further held that temporary spousal support was unavailable because it had not been pleaded and, in any event, entitlement was not established on the written record.

A preservation order over the matrimonial home was extended pending a combined settlement conference/trial management conference, but equivalent relief regarding the investment property was refused.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions regarding interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, parenting, and support.

The parties had a high-conflict separation resulting in the applicant being charged with assault and removed from the home.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding it was in the children's best interests to return to their home and daycare routine.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $266,952 based on prior earnings and non-taxable benefits, ordering interim child and spousal support.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility, and the respondent's parenting time was ordered to be supervised for three months due to concerns about his alcohol consumption.

The Applicant brought a motion to strike the Respondent's Answer and related documents due to his persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and child support payments.

The Respondent sought an adjournment, leave to amend his Answer, and permission for international travel with the child.

The court dismissed the Respondent's adjournment request and limited the scope of his motion.

Finding the Respondent's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, the court granted the Applicant's motion to strike the Respondent's Answer with respect to non-parenting issues, allowing financial matters to proceed on an uncontested basis.

The court also imposed travel restrictions on both parties and fixed costs against the Respondent.