Lorrie Stojni-Kassik

The respondent father brought a motion to vary the interim parenting schedule to a 2-2-3 schedule.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule and requested an updated voice of the child report or the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court reviewed a previous voice of the child report which indicated the children struggled with short transitions.

Finding that the status quo was not in the children's best interests, the court granted the father's motion to implement a 2-2-3 schedule to minimize transitions and dismissed the mother's request for further assessments.

Following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule and school enrollment, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $21,425.93.

The respondent opposed, citing limited ability to pay and arguing the costs were excessive.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and behaved reasonably, while the respondent's position was unreasonable.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $14,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $400.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally removed the children from the matrimonial home.

On an interim motion, the father sought to change the parenting schedule from 2-2-3 to 2-2-5-5 and to have the eldest child attend school in his catchment area, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The mother opposed the changes and sought to have the child attend school in her catchment area.

The court granted the father's requests, finding that the 2-2-5-5 schedule would reduce conflict through fewer exchanges, and that the mother's unilateral actions and alienating behaviour made the father's proposed school the better choice for the child's stability.

An appeal concerning the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown, specifically the interpretation and application of a domestic contract regarding a $45,000 deposit on a matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the trial judge double-counted this amount, giving the respondent an unfair advantage.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by allowing the $45,000 to be both an exclusion under the domestic contract and a marriage-date deduction under the Family Law Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, correcting the arithmetic error and reducing the equalization payment owed by the appellant.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and primary residency of the parties' surviving child, and to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with the child from Waterloo to Bowmanville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation.

The court found that the parties' Revised Parenting Plan, which removed geographic restrictions on the mother's residence, remained in effect.

The court permitted the mother to relocate with the child to Bowmanville, maintaining the joint custody arrangement and the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The father's requests for sole custody, a police enforcement clause, and a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act were dismissed.