The Appellant, Andreas Touma, appealed two orders of Clay J. dismissing his motion for interim shared custody and equal parenting time of his newborn son, and dismissing his application to set aside the first order based on apprehension of bias.
The motions judge had ruled that the application should be commenced in Oshawa, where the child ordinarily resided, rather than Peel, where the father resided.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motions judge correctly applied the Family Law Rules regarding the ordinary residence for commencing an application, distinguishing it from habitual residence for jurisdictional contests.
The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the motions judge.
