Maddalena Fuller

The respondent, John Kenyon, brought an urgent motion to reinstate his parenting time with his child, RK, after it was suspended due to non-compliance with Soberlink alcohol testing protocols and outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kenyon’s breaches of multiple court orders, failure to pay costs, and lack of full and frank disclosure when seeking leave to bring the motion were significant.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the duty of candour in ex parte motions.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, Rachel Ross.

The respondent moved to set aside an order obtained by the applicant through an uncontested trial, arguing that he believed mediation was ongoing and was not properly notified.

The applicant opposed, but the court granted the respondent's motion, finding his explanation for default adequate and noting the applicant's conduct in proceeding to an uncontested trial without proper notice or clear communication about the end of mediation was problematic.

The court emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the applicant father for child support purposes and interim disbursements for legal fees and an expert.

The court found the applicant had provided sufficient disclosure, dismissing the respondent's motion for further disclosure, but ordered applicant's counsel to obtain a comprehensive compensation letter from Manulife to address remaining concerns.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for interim disbursements, citing the unreasonableness of her litigation conduct and her financial capacity.

The applicant was awarded costs for a prior contested adjournment.

The father appealed a final order of the Ontario Court of Justice granting the mother sole custody of a young child and permitting relocation to England, with specified access to the father.

The father alleged legal error in the relocation analysis, trial unfairness arising from late-produced evidence, misapprehension of facts, and deficiencies in the wording and enforceability of the final order.

The court held the trial judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test and made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing evidence regarding relocation, parental cooperation, and family connections.

However, the appellate court found that when settling the wording of the final order the trial judge should have considered proposed clarifications and additions rather than limiting changes to those consented to by both parties.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part, affirming the custody, relocation, and access determinations but remitting the final order to the trial judge to address wording, completeness, and enforceability issues, and determining that a July 2014 access visit satisfied the Toronto access requirement subject to travel reimbursement.