4 total
The court granted the mother's temporary motion to relocate with the child, finding she was the primary caregiver.
The applicant father sought joint custody of the parties' child with primary residence with the respondent mother and weekend access, or alternatively sole custody.
The respondent mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Brampton to London, Ontario for employment purposes.
The court found the respondent was the primary caregiver and granted temporary permission for relocation, finding the move would not materially interfere with the applicant's access and would provide financial benefits to the family unit.
The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.
The court ordered the return of a child after the mother unilaterally relocated prior to trial.
The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking that the parties' seven-year-old daughter reside with him and continue attending school in Waterloo, Ontario.
The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Manitoulin Island where she had already moved without court authorization.
The court applied the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and the interim mobility test from Plumley v. Plumley.
Finding that the mother had acted precipitously and contrary to the child's best interests by relocating without seeking a court order first, and that custody remained undetermined, the court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered the child returned to the father's care in Waterloo Region pending trial.
The court denied a mother's request to relocate her child to Labrador, maintaining joint custody and equal time-sharing.
The applicant sought custody of the child, child support, guardianship over the child's property, and permission to relocate the child's residence from Kitchener, Ontario to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The respondent opposed the relocation and sought custody with child support if relocation occurred.
The parties had previously entered into a mediation agreement providing for joint custody with equal time-sharing on a week-about basis.
The court determined that custody should remain joint with equal time-sharing, and denied the applicant's request to relocate the child, finding that such a move would be contrary to the child's best interests by dramatically reducing contact with the respondent father and disrupting the child's established relationships and community.
Costs awarded against the Family Responsibility Office for unreasonably resuming driver's licence suspension proceedings.
The applicant sought costs against the Director of the Family Responsibility Office following a successful motion to refrain the suspension of his driver's licence.
The applicant had agreed to spousal support provisions in a separation agreement and had commenced a motion to change the support amount due to a significant reduction in income.
The Director had previously agreed not to pursue enforcement if the applicant commenced a motion to change, which he did.
However, approximately six months later, without prior notice or consultation, the Director issued a notice to suspend the applicant's driver's licence.
The applicant brought a motion to refrain the suspension, which was resolved when the parties agreed to withdraw the support agreement from the Director's office.
The court found that the Director's decision to restart aggressive enforcement without prior notice or consultation constituted special and unusual circumstances justifying a costs award against the government agency.
