Marie A. Tukara

This case addresses two motions concerning a child's schooling for Junior Kindergarten and a revised parenting schedule.

The court rejected the mother's proposal for a private religious school due to insufficient admissible evidence and potential parental conflict, ordering the child to attend Annandale Public School.

Regarding parenting time, the court maintained the existing time allocation (approximately 60% with the mother, 40% with the father) but implemented a new bi-weekly schedule to reduce the frequency of exchanges, rejecting both parents' proposals for substantial changes.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, particularly emotional and psychological well-being, and the importance of admissible evidence on motions.

The Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), sought an order to release $38,203.40 in garnished inheritance funds to satisfy child support arrears owed by the payor.

The payor acknowledged arrears but requested the court exercise equitable jurisdiction to reduce the garnishment amount to $25,000 and propose a repayment plan for the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the payor's request for a repayment plan as it was not formally brought by motion.

The court found the payor's arguments regarding "reassessments" disingenuous, noting his failure to pay proper support and increase in income without corresponding support adjustments.

The court emphasized the child's right to support and the payor's obligation.

The payor's dispute was dismissed, and the release of the full garnished amount was ordered.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order for primary care of the two children and permission to relocate with them from London to Oakville.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought primary care if the mother relocated.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz* and interim relocation factors from *Plumley v. Plumley*, found that the mother was the primary caregiver and faced significant financial and professional uncertainty in London, while having a rare fellowship opportunity in Toronto.

Despite a genuine issue for trial, the court found compelling circumstances to allow the interim move, noting a strong probability the mother's position would prevail at trial and that a change in primary parent would be disruptive to the young children.

The motion for relocation was granted on an interim basis.

The respondent father moved for an interim order to expand access to his two-year-old son and to change the access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the expanded access and sought an order for the respondent to contribute to their 17-year-old son's hockey registration fees.

The court dismissed the father's request for expanded access, finding no material change in circumstances to warrant varying the existing consent order.

However, the court granted the father's request to change the exchange location to the parties' respective residences.

The court also ordered the father to contribute $1,000 to the hockey registration fees.

Following a motion concerning interim child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had succeeded in imputing income to the responding party under s. 19(1)(h) of the Child Support Guidelines by grossing up dividend income received from a solely‑owned corporation and also succeeded on the commencement date of increased interim support.

The responding party argued for divided success, but the court rejected that position and found the moving party was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced the amount sought because the successful party failed to serve a Rule 18 offer to settle.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable forthwith.

On a motion for interim child support, the court considered whether a payor parent who received income from a wholly owned corporation through dividends rather than salary should have income adjusted for child support purposes.

After applying Schedule III s. 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court held that a further adjustment under s. 19(1)(h) was appropriate because dividend income taxed at a lower rate did not fairly reflect the payor’s resources.

The court relied on authorities addressing income derived from wholly owned corporations and the need for consistent treatment between salaried earners and corporate payors.

Income was therefore grossed up beyond the actual dividend received to approximate the payor’s available income.

The court also rejected the payor’s claim that parenting time exceeded 40% and ordered interim child support and arrears.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over all matters in their family law case, including divorce, equalization, and support.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion to stay the divorce claim, arguing that he had already commenced a divorce proceeding in Poland and that Poland was the more appropriate forum.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court held that the husband failed to show that Poland was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the parties resided in Ontario throughout their marriage, the property issues were already conceded to Ontario, and a Polish divorce could prejudice the wife's spousal support claims.

The husband's motion was dismissed and the wife's motion was granted.