Marlene Kazman

This ruling addresses a motion for temporary parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The respondent father sought a triaged increase in parenting time leading to shared parenting, while the applicant mother, who had primary care, agreed to an increase in principle but disagreed on the timing and scope.

The court, noting the parties' extensive and detrimental conflict, ordered a staged increase in the father's parenting time, including overnights, while maintaining the mother's primary care, pending a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment.

The decision also included orders for shared decision-making, communication protocols, shared costs for supervised access, and prohibitions against disparagement and social media posts.

The court declined to award costs, citing the parties' counterproductive litigation behaviour.

The parties separated following an incident where the mother was charged with assaulting the father.

The child remained in the father's primary care for over a year.

At trial, both parties sought sole custody.

The father also sought to relocate outside of Toronto and alleged the mother's mental health issues impaired her parenting ability.

The court found the mother's mental health was stable and well-managed, and that the father's relocation plan was not child-focused and disregarded the mother's role.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father.

The court also imputed income to the father and ordered him to pay child support and retroactive spousal support, while suspending ongoing spousal support due to his pandemic-reduced income.

Following a long motion regarding temporary parenting, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent wife was largely successful, having obtained primary residence, exclusive possession, and temporary support.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the wife's offers were closer to the final order.

The court also found the applicant husband acted unreasonably by refusing to vacate the matrimonial home despite having alternative accommodation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $19,200 in costs.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, an equal parenting schedule, a custody and access assessment, and to pay $5,000 per month in voluntary support.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the home, primary residence of the children, and $10,000 per month in uncharacterized support.

The court ordered a section 30 assessment due to the high conflict and the children's behavioural issues.

The court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children, finding it was in their best interests to maintain stability.

The husband's motion for the immediate sale of the home was dismissed.

The husband was ordered to pay $7,200 per month in temporary undifferentiated support.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his 19-month-old daughter, EFN.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking supervised access at a supervised access centre and imposing several conditions, including a mental health assessment for the father.

The court granted the father's motion for supervised access, initially by a private agency and then by the paternal grandmother, to take place at the father's home.

Most of the mother's requested conditions were dismissed as unreasonable.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and her views on the father's culture racist, ordering her to pay costs to the father.