Manraj Grewal

The respondent brought a motion seeking permission to relocate with the child to Petawawa, Ontario, due to a military posting.

The applicant opposed this request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that there were serious credibility and factual issues that could not be resolved on an interim motion.

The court noted the respondent's failure to provide sufficient evidence of compelling circumstances for the transfer or that she had explored alternatives to delay the transfer.

The proposed relocation would significantly reduce the child's parenting time with the applicant.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial on a priority basis to determine decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule.

This case involved a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (BJDR) to resolve long-standing family law issues concerning parenting decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The court denied the respondent father's request for an adjournment, finding he had ample time to prepare.

The final orders granted the applicant mother sole decision-making authority for the child, established a detailed parenting schedule for regular, holiday, and summer periods, and permitted the mother to authorize international travel without the father's consent.

The respondent father was ordered to pay increased table child support retroactively from 2019 based on his increased income and to contribute to Section 7 expenses, including arrears, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for certainty in co-parenting.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking final decision-making authority over education and extracurricular activities, a week-about schedule, and the ability to travel internationally without the father's consent.

The court found no material change in circumstances to warrant varying the previous order, noting that the high conflict between the parties had not worsened but remained consistent.

The parties consented to some changes, including a week-about schedule and school arrangements.

The court also imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, recognizing her leave of absence was required to care for her child.

The applicant mother brought an application for divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and property division.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the divorce, awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and limited the father's parenting time to supervised virtual contact due to pending criminal charges for domestic violence.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $22,985 for RRSPs, imputed the father's income at minimum wage for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order against the father.

Following a successful motion to impute income, the applicant sought costs of $5,198 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent did not file responding materials but had previously rejected offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

Considering the applicant's offers to settle and the respondent's failure to engage in settlement discussions, the court awarded partial indemnity costs at the higher range, fixed at $3,600.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed and sought to impute her income at $50,000.

The court found the applicant had established a prima facie case for spousal support but agreed she was intentionally underemployed, imputing her income at $30,000.

The respondent's income was determined to be $120,000.

The court ordered set-off child support of $1,257 per month and spousal support of $1,587 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children attend school virtually for the fall 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother's new partner was immunocompromised and at high risk of complications from the virus.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the benefits of in-person learning outweighed the risks.

The court found that the children's best interests were inextricably connected to the health and safety of both households.

Given the medical evidence regarding the step-father's vulnerability, the court ordered that the children attend school virtually from the mother's home for the fall semester.

The applicant mother brought a motion to impute the respondent father's income for the purposes of child and spousal support, arguing he failed to provide financial disclosure as required by their separation agreement.

The father, a self-employed real estate agent, opposed the motion and sought to impute income to the mother for a period when she was studying nursing.

The court imputed the father's income at $230,000 due to his failure to disclose and lack of evidence regarding business expenses.

The court declined to impute income to the mother for 2019, finding her decision not to work part-time while studying and caring for three children was reasonable, but imputed her income at $40,000 going forward on consent.

The applicant sought costs for successful urgency and jurisdictional determinations, and for a partially successful motion to stay a trial judgment pending appeal.

The respondent sought costs for her success on the stay motion.

The court found mixed success, with the applicant prevailing on urgency and jurisdiction, and the respondent on the joint decision-making aspect of the stay.

Neither party fully succeeded on parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant $2,750 and the respondent $1,250, resulting in a net payment of $1,500 to the applicant, deferred until the appeal's disposition.

The court declined to award costs for preparing costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' bills and the applicant's improper disclosure of an offer to settle.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion to stay a custody and parenting order pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The preliminary issue was whether the Superior Court of Justice retained jurisdiction to hear the stay motion after an appeal had been launched.

The court found that Rule 63.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court for such motions.

The respondent mother failed to demonstrate why the Superior Court should not exercise its concurrent jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court asserted jurisdiction and scheduled the applicant's motion for a stay.

The Applicant father sought an urgent motion to enforce a shared parenting schedule for his two children, which the Respondent mother had unilaterally suspended for five weeks due to her immunocompromised status and concerns about COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied principles from Ribeiro v Wright, emphasizing children's best interests and the need for specific evidence of non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother's concerns largely overstated and unsupported, and her approach self-centred and undermining of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted, restoring parenting time to the father with specific COVID-19 safety protocols.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 crisis to reduce the respondent father's parenting time, seeking to eliminate overnight visits due to alleged inappropriate sexual content disclosures by their two young daughters (aged four and six).

The father denied the allegations, suggesting the mother was coaching the children.

The court found the children's statements, particularly those made to the social worker, were not sufficiently reliable to establish the father's culpability, noting potential parental influence and shortcomings in the Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation.

The motion to reduce the father's access was dismissed.

The court issued orders to mitigate harm, prohibiting parents from discussing sexual content statements with the children and requiring the mother to report any future disclosures directly to CAS and the physician without further questioning the child.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and restricted contact for the respondent father, citing her vulnerable health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's alleged non-compliance with health protocols.

The court granted the mother interim exclusive possession of the home and ordered the father's contact with the children to be via electronic means, finding that the father had not adequately addressed the increased health risks to the family.

The court declined to address financial aspects due to insufficient information.

The applicant sought leave to proceed to an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and related relief, citing medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis and the respondent's failure to adhere to "stay at home" recommendations.

The court granted leave, finding that the applicant's proposed motion met the Chief Justice's criteria for urgency due to her serious medical conditions, including systemic lupus, asthma, and supraventricular tachycardia.

The ruling emphasized that the purpose of the leave motion was to assess urgency, not to determine the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking extended society care for two children, F.M.-C. and L.M., and findings of need of protection.

The mother, supported by the father and maternal grandparents, opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including her progress in addressing Society concerns and the improper admission of evidence as business records.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial for both children, particularly regarding the mother's progress in addressing homelessness, substance use, and mental health, and the admissibility of the Society's evidentiary record.

The court emphasized the cautious approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases due to the high stakes and Charter rights involved.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.