James R. Olchowy

The father brought motions concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibilities, child support, and spousal support for the child of the relationship.

The mother opposed and made various allegations against the father, including family violence and substance abuse, which were largely discredited by police and Children's Aid Society reports.

The court granted the father unsupervised parenting time and ordered shared day-to-day decision-making, with major decisions to be made jointly in urgent issues.

Child support was calculated based on the father's income, and arrears were determined with a reduced repayment rate.

The mother's claim for temporary spousal support was dismissed, as the court found the parties were not in a "relationship of some permanence" due to a lack of economic interdependence, despite having a child together.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with his two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the children's exposure to family violence and the father's erratic behaviour.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act, emphasizing a human rights-based approach and the impact of family violence on the children's best interests.

The court ordered a slight increase in the father's parenting time, largely adopting the mother's proposed schedule with strict conditions, but allowing contact with the children's half-sibling.

This ruling addresses costs following the resolution of all other issues in a family law case.

The Applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour and delay.

The Respondent sought costs and reimbursement, alleging the Applicant withheld financial disclosure, obstructed attempts to obtain it, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith.

The court found that both parties withheld relevant financial information, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith, thereby rebutting the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

Given that the Applicant had already been awarded interim costs, no further costs were ordered for either party.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion on behalf of Kenny Cheng, a minor child whose parents died in a car accident in China in 2011.

The paternal grandparents sought custody and access to Kenny, while the maternal grandmother sought sole custody.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, awarding sole custody to the maternal grandmother, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The court found that the maternal grandmother had been Kenny's sole caregiver since his parents' death, that Kenny had a close relationship with her, and that he consistently expressed his preference to reside with her and not have contact with his paternal grandparents.

The court also found that the paternal grandparents' allegations against the maternal grandmother were largely unsubstantiated and that access should be left to Kenny's discretion.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend his statement of claim to include further claims under the Human Rights Code and to add David M. Fine as a defendant on a common employer basis.

The plaintiff also sought an order for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant and a litigation timetable.

The court granted leave for the Human Rights Code amendments, finding they did not constitute new causes of action.

However, leave to add David M. Fine as a defendant was denied because the limitation period had expired, and the plaintiff had always been aware of Fine's role.

The court ordered the defendant to provide a further and better affidavit of documents for specific items and established a comprehensive litigation timetable, including mandatory mediation before examinations for discovery.

The defendant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court default judgment.

The court found that the defendant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to present any evidence of a defence to the claim.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $5,500 for the sale of welding wire.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the wire was still certified and failed to appreciate the extent of the defects.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and there was no palpable and overriding error.