3 total
Motion for leave to appeal interlocutory order and to adduce fresh evidence dismissed with costs.
The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.
The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.
Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.
The court vacated a temporary supervised parenting order and established a new schedule granting both parents overnight access.
This motion concerned temporary parenting arrangements for a 3-year-old child following an emergency ex parte order.
The applicant father initially sought continued supervised parenting time for the respondent mother due to concerns about her mental health and erratic behavior, including frequent calls to the police and paramedics.
The mother refuted these claims, alleging psychological and financial abuse by the father and his family, and sought unsupervised parenting time and a set schedule.
The court found that continued supervision of the mother was not warranted, attributing her past behavior to separation stress and lack of support, noting she was seeking medical assistance.
The court established a new temporary parenting schedule, including overnight time for the father, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact with both parents.
The decision also ordered the parties to use a co-parenting communication app and for the mother to engage in therapy.
The court transferred an Ontario divorce proceeding to British Columbia where the children were most substantially connected.
The Mother brought a motion to transfer the Father's divorce proceeding from Ontario to British Columbia, arguing that B.C. was the children's most substantial connection.
Despite Ontario having prima facie jurisdiction, the court exercised its discretion under s. 6(1) of the Divorce Act to transfer the entire proceeding to B.C. The court found it was in the children's best interests to remain in B.C., considering their current residence, schooling, extended family support, and the Father's acquiescence to their relocation.
The Father's legal steps to return the children to Ontario and obtain custody were deemed largely tactical.
