Kaila Meddoui

In competing family law motions, the moving party sought permission to move the children’s residence to another city, change schools, and change dentists, while the responding party sought dismissal and argued the move constituted a relocation engaging heightened statutory requirements.

Applying the Divorce Act framework, the court held the proposed move was a change in residence, not a relocation, because with schedule and transportation adjustments it was not likely to significantly impact the children’s relationship with the non-moving parent.

The court found written notice requirements were met and concluded the proposed parenting and care plan was in the children’s best interests.

Temporary terms were set for pickup/return logistics and weekday parenting end times.

The moving party’s requests were granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion seeking leave for a licensed paralegal to act as her agent in a family law proceeding, excluding trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while paralegals are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) and bound by a code of conduct, their P1 license does not permit representation in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court.

The court emphasized that Rule 4(1)(c) of the Family Law Rules requires special circumstances for non-lawyer representation, which were not met, and that allowing such representation would undermine the LSO's regulatory framework and compromise the integrity of the justice system.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support in an undefended family law trial.

The respondent father failed to attend the trial or comply with procedural orders.

The court reviewed the history of care, noting the father's erratic behaviour, family violence, and recent involvement of the Children's Aid Society after he destroyed the children's electronics.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, making no order for the father's parenting time.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears for both table amounts and section 7 expenses.

The case concerns a father's motion to return a child (L.F.R.) to London, Ontario, and the mother's cross-motion to allow L.F.R. to remain with her in Springhill, Nova Scotia, following a relocation.

The court found the mother had complied with the separation agreement's relocation notice provisions and, alternatively, that the relocation was in the child's best interests, particularly given the child's transgender identity and the supportive environment in Springhill.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, allowing L.F.R. to remain in Springhill.