Heather Geertsma

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for the child, S.C., who had been in temporary care since birth.

The respondent parents opposed, arguing for a trial to present their plans for the child's care, including family assistance in Ontario or a move to British Columbia.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the parents' unresolved mental health issues, chronic housing instability, history of domestic violence, and inconsistent access visits demonstrated their inability to provide a stable and safe home.

The court dismissed the parents' proposed plans as unviable and granted the Society's request for extended care, ordering monthly supervised access for the parents.

The parties separated and proceeded to a matrimonial trial to resolve outstanding issues regarding property division, section 7 expenses, and parenting matters.

The court determined the values of disputed assets for the Net Family Property calculations and ordered the respondent to pay his share of the children's hot lunches.

The applicant was granted the right to travel internationally without the respondent's consent, but her request for broad mobility rights was restricted to a 50-kilometre radius from Grimsby.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for occupation rent and the applicant's claim for an unequal division of the matrimonial home's post-separation increase in value, finding that the high threshold for unconscionability under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act was not met.

Following a motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home where the applicant mother was more successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $12,451.47.

The court found divided success, no bad faith by the respondent father, and no offers to settle.

Considering the parties' financial positions (both on social assistance) and the partial success, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to dispense with the respondent father's signature for the sale of the matrimonial home and to strike his pleadings for failing to comply with previous court orders.

The court found that the father had deliberately frustrated the court-ordered sale process by refusing to sign the listing agreement, insisting on a higher price, and interfering with the real estate agent.

The court granted the order dispensing with his consent.

However, the court declined to strike his pleadings, finding it to be an exceptional remedy, and instead ordered that he be barred from bringing further motions until he paid $8,000 in outstanding costs.

The respondent sought costs following motions where the parties had divided success.

The court noted that no offers to settle were exchanged and found that the respondent had behaved unreasonably by failing to comply with previous costs orders while simultaneously offering to purchase the matrimonial home.

Concluding that the respondent did not come to the court with clean hands, the court ordered no costs.