Peter Allen Skuce

The Applicant sought an interim order to relocate with the three children of the marriage from Dutton/Wallacetown to Tilbury, Ontario, approximately 141 km away.

The Respondent opposed the move, arguing it should be determined at trial.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the proposed relocation was not in the children's best interests at this interim stage.

The Applicant's plan of care lacked crucial details regarding housing, employment, and the support network for the children, raising concerns about their security and well-being.

The court also found no compelling reason to permit the interim move, noting that the stated desire for an "upgraded lifestyle" and access to activities was not unique to Tilbury and did not outweigh the significant impact on the children's relationship and parenting time with the Respondent.

The court emphasized that the best interests of the children, not the parents' interests, were paramount, and that the issues presented were genuine issues for trial requiring more detailed evidence.

Following a family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $72,500 in costs, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

After considering the parties' offers to settle, unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, and making deductions for excessive or unsubstantiated docket entries, the court ordered the respondent to pay $27,000 in costs to the applicant.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking primary care of the parties' daughter (C2) after C2 exhibited extreme resistance to the week-about parenting schedule.

The father sought to enforce the shared parenting order and requested sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding C2 due to her resistance, which was exacerbated by the mother's overprotectiveness, failure to exercise parental authority, and lingering anger toward the father.

The court ordered a gradual return to a shared parenting schedule for C2 and temporarily suspended the mother's right to make medical and extracurricular decisions due to her unilateral decision-making.

The parties, who share parenting time on a rotating weekly basis, disagreed on which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed a public school near his home, while the respondent mother proposed a French first language Catholic school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering logistics, the parents' ability to assist with homework, and the promotion of the child's religious and linguistic heritage.

The court ordered that the child attend the French Catholic school proposed by the mother, finding it more consonant with the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought an interim motion to change the placement of two children subject to a supervision order during a status review application.

The court applied the test under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, which presumes that a child shall remain in the care of the person having charge unless the child's best interests require a change.

The court found that the mother's cognitive limitations, psychological denial, inability to create a stable home environment, and the children's significant behavioral and developmental needs clearly outweighed their short-term interest in continuity of care.

The court granted the motion and ordered the children removed from parental care, adjourning the matter for an expedited trial.

The parties separated in 2005 after a 17-year marriage.

Post-separation, the applicant sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, rendering her disabled, while the respondent retrained and significantly increased his income.

The court awarded the applicant $700 monthly in spousal support, declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the unusual circumstances of a post-separation disability unrelated to the marriage.

The court also found the 19-year-old son remained a child of the marriage and ordered the applicant to pay ongoing child support, as well as a $17,500 lump sum for retroactive child support.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that varied a prior custody order and granted the respondent sole custody of the parties’ children.

The appeal court held that the trial judge erred in law by varying the custody order despite expressly finding that no material change in circumstances had been proven, contrary to the governing test in Gordon v. Goertz.

The court further found that the trial judge compromised the appearance of judicial impartiality by conducting extensive cross‑examination of a key witness and refusing to permit counsel to ask follow‑up questions, resulting in procedural unfairness.

Because these errors deprived the court of jurisdiction and undermined the fairness of the proceeding, the variation order could not stand.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and a new trial ordered, with the prior custody arrangement reinstated in the interim.