Lindsay Karpetz

The Applicant brought a motion seeking financial disclosure, an advance on equalization, and costs.

The Respondent provided some disclosure and the advance payment just before the motion hearing, rendering the advance payment request moot.

The court found the Applicant largely prevailed due to the Respondent's "11th hour" compliance, which was deemed unproductive.

The court ordered the Respondent to provide the remaining disclosure within 15 days and pay $10,000 in costs to the Applicant, finding the requested $25,000+ to be unreasonable for a one-hour motion.

This case involves competing interim parenting motions in a high-conflict family litigation.

The Respondent Mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Hamilton to Woodbridge, alleging family violence.

The Applicant Father sought the child's return to Hamilton and joint decision-making, denying abuse.

The court, facing conflicting affidavit evidence and a young child, adjourned the Applicant Father's motion until a s.30 assessment was completed.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the Respondent Mother and granted the Applicant Father supervised parenting time, adjusting the schedule to reduce transit time.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the difficulty of interim mobility motions, and the need for caution with conflicting affidavit evidence.