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.