L. Conti

The case involves a dispute over decision-making responsibility and parenting time for a child, Anna, following the separation of her birth mother (Respondent) and her former spouse (Applicant).

The primary issue was the Respondent's desire to relocate the child from Fort Frances, Ontario, to Saskatchewan.

The court considered the child's best interests, including stability, existing relationships, history of care, and the impact of relocation.

The court found that relocation would be detrimental to the child and granted the Applicant sole decision-making responsibility, with the child to reside primarily with the Applicant in Fort Frances.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment to restrict the father's parenting time to be based solely on the children's views and preferences, and to finalize child support obligations.

The father had previously brought a motion to change seeking equal parenting time and alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) supported the mother's position, emphasizing the clear and consistent wishes of the teenage children not to have contact with their father.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the mother, dismissing the father's motion to change, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial given the extensive and credible evidence from the OCL clinicians regarding the children's wishes.

The mother brought a motion to determine the school enrollment of the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought enrollment in a French Immersion program, while the father, who had unilaterally enrolled the child in an English program contrary to a prior order requiring joint decision-making, sought to maintain the English enrollment.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to have the opportunity to master French, noting the child's French-Canadian heritage and the benefits of bilingualism.

The court ordered the child to be enrolled in the French Immersion school and directed that both parents, the father's grandmother, and the mother's partner be listed as emergency contacts.

The applicant was successful on a motion to relocate with the parties' children and sought costs of $7,000.00.

The respondent argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $1,500.00, citing the financial impact on his ability to exercise parenting time.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive, disallowed fees for 'advising counsel', and reduced the preparation time.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,144.00 plus HST.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary child support from the respondent step-mother.

The parties had signed a separation agreement two years post-separation wherein the applicant acknowledged the respondent had no obligation to support his children.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as her own, and the clear terms of the separation agreement, the court found no prima facie case for temporary relief.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue left for the imminent trial.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following motions concerning child relocation, custody, and access.

The Mother sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Father's conduct was unreasonable.

The court found the Mother was the successful party on the primary issue of relocation, but noted divided success on other issues, particularly access.

Considering the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of both parties' behaviour, and the offers to settle, the court fixed costs at $2,000, a substantial reduction from the Mother's claim.

The Mother's request to enforce the costs award as child support was denied, as the costs were not related to support or maintenance under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.