Mackinnon

The parties sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a motion regarding the choice of school for their children.

The respondent had succeeded in having the children attend private school and obtained her alternative relief that she alone be responsible for the fees.

The applicant claimed divided success because the respondent did not obtain an order for proportionate sharing of the fees.

The court rejected the applicant's argument, finding the respondent was the successful party on both issues.

The court awarded the respondent her claimed costs of $3,407.49.

The mother, a general surgeon, brought a motion to temporarily relocate the parties' five-year-old child to Kapuskasing for alternating months while she completed a one-year employment contract.

The parents previously shared joint decision-making and equal residential parenting in Renfrew.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the extensive travel and disruption of attending two different schools would not be in the child's best interests.

The child was ordered to remain in the father's primary care in Renfrew for the duration of the contract, with generous parenting time for the mother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary decision-making and residential care of his two children in the context of a Motion to Change.

The respondent mother did not attend but indicated by email that she had asked the father to keep the children temporarily.

The court noted deficiencies in the father's affidavit regarding his living situation and childcare plans.

The court granted a limited temporary order allowing the father to obtain medical prescriptions for one child, register the children for online learning, and keep the children in his care until further order, while adjourning the motion for the father to file proper materials.

The applicant sought costs of $22,689.79 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion where primary residence and decision-making authority were transferred to him.

The respondent argued against a costs award, citing her financial circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $19,500 in costs, including costs for the urgency determination and case conferences pursuant to Rules 17(18.1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

However, payment was stayed until the respondent obtains employment or her financial claims are determined.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to reduce the applicant father's parenting time to supervised access, alleging the father failed to follow COVID-19 public health guidelines and that their child was at higher risk due to a cardiac condition.

The court found the child's cardiac condition did not place him at a higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, relying on a recent cardiologist report.

However, the court found the father had breached some agreed-upon COVID-19 protocols.

The court dismissed the request for supervised access but ordered strict COVID-19 safety terms the father must follow to maintain his parenting time.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption for two children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to implement a shared residential schedule and obtain joint decision-making for the parties' four children.

The existing order contained pre-conditions requiring that family tensions be reduced and the children not show outward signs of distress before moving to a shared schedule.

The court found that significant parental conflict remained and that the children continued to exhibit behavioural issues at school, meaning the pre-conditions were not met.

The father also failed to establish a material change in circumstances to justify joint decision-making, as the parents remained unable to communicate effectively.

The motion was largely dismissed, with minor amendments made to transition times.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, and the respondent moved for temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The parties were married for 23 years, during which the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent, who has a high net worth.

The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the applicant due to his voluntary underemployment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $4,600 per month and ordered the applicant to pay $304 per month in child support and $823 per month for section 7 expenses.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two young children.

The parents were facing criminal charges based on allegations by an older sibling, which led to the children's apprehension.

The Society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from the older siblings and a foster parent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that summary judgment was not appropriate given the evidentiary deficiencies, the parents' inability to cross-examine the adult complainant, and the upcoming criminal trial.

The court ordered peremptory trial dates to be scheduled near the expiration of the statutory timeline for the children to be in care.