Martin Kenny

This motion concerned an interim parenting schedule for a 2.5-year-old child following the separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, which the respondent mother opposed, proposing a more gradual reintroduction.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting that the "tender years" doctrine no longer applies and breastfeeding is one of many factors.

The court considered the geographic distance between the parents, the mother's mental health issues and associated release order, and the mother's uncooperative approach to facilitating parenting time.

While acknowledging the mother as the primary caregiver pre-separation, the court ordered a structured, gradually increasing parenting schedule for the father, including weeknight visits in the mother's area and weekend visits at a midpoint location.

The motion was adjourned for continuation in several months to assess the schedule's effectiveness and allow for further evidence.

The Respondent, Ms. Enei, brought a motion for summary judgment on property issues, seeking findings of no genuine issue for trial regarding the Applicant's claims for unequal division of net family property, beneficial ownership of certain investment accounts (resulting trust), and unjust enrichment.

The Applicant, Mr. Enei, opposed and brought a cross-motion for various relief, including divorce severance, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an accounting, disclosure, return of family dogs, and a temporary variation of spousal support.

The court granted Ms. Enei's summary judgment motion on the claims for unequal division and unjust enrichment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

However, the motion was dismissed regarding beneficial entitlement to investment accounts and equalization, as these issues raised credibility questions requiring a trial.

Mr. Enei's cross-motion was largely dismissed, except for the severance of the divorce and partial disclosure.

The court found Mr. Enei's allegations of excessive spending and diversion of funds by Ms. Enei unsubstantiated and his disclosure requests disproportionate.

The moving party sought permission to bring a motion to change his spousal support obligations, having recently paid over $300,000 to purge a warrant of committal for support arrears.

The responding party opposed the request on the basis that the moving party still owed significant arrears and unpaid costs, and had not posted security for costs.

Relying on recent appellate authority that security for costs should not act as a roadblock to genuine claims for review of support, the court granted the moving party permission to proceed with his motion to change, subject to strict financial disclosure requirements.

The respondent requested and was granted an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled six-day family law trial involving highly contested parenting issues.

The adjournment was granted on the condition that the respondent pay the applicant's costs thrown away.

The applicant sought $7,585.71 for 34.96 hours of wasted preparation time, while the respondent argued for $1,695 representing 7.5 hours.

The court found that significant preparation time would need to be redone, but reduced the claimed hours to account for tasks that were not completely wasted.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $6,102 inclusive of HST.

The Appellant, Houssein Awada, appealed an arbitration award concerning net family property (NFP) equalization and income imputation for child and spousal support.

Mr. Awada argued that two properties (Laurier Avenue and Palmerston Drive) were held in trust for his brother and should not be included in his NFP, and that the Arbitrator erred in calculating his 2016 income and in not imputing a higher income to the Respondent, Sheryl Kristy O’Connell.

The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings on all issues, applying a standard of review of correctness for questions of law and palpable and overriding error for questions of mixed fact and law.

The court found no errors in the Arbitrator's assessment of evidence, credibility, or the imputation of income, emphasizing deference to the Arbitrator's findings.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support, section 7 expenses, private school tuition obligations, spousal support arrears enforcement, and access travel costs.

The court declined to impute income to the father, setting ongoing child support based on his actual reduced income.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of valid section 7 expenses (dental and tutoring) based on historical incomes, but dismissed claims for summer camps and other extracurriculars lacking consent or proof of necessity.

The father's requests to vary his 50% contribution to private school tuition, suspend enforcement of spousal support arrears due to bankruptcy, and share access travel costs were all dismissed.

Following a four‑day family law trial involving custody, access, child support, and section 7 expenses, the court addressed costs.

The responding party sought costs on an enhanced basis after obtaining a result equal to or better than a written offer to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering proportionality, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, though the amount sought was reduced.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 and declined to permit enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office because the case was not primarily about child support.

Following a prior family law decision concerning child support and arrears, the court invited written submissions limited to correcting potential arithmetic errors in the calculations.

After reviewing submissions, the court revised certain calculations relating to the moving party’s proportionate share of child care expenses for 2011 and 2012 and corrected a mistaken statutory reference from s. 9 to s. 7.

The court also accepted that certain child care payments had been made earlier in 2013 and adjusted the commencement date of payments accordingly.

The corrected calculations resulted in revised child support arrears.

The court indicated that submissions on costs would be considered if the parties could not reach agreement.

A parenting trial concerning custody, access, and child support for a young child of unmarried parents who had relocated between Nova Scotia and Ontario.

The father sought custody and permission to relocate the child permanently to Nova Scotia, while the mother opposed relocation and sought primary care in Ottawa.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found both parents capable but expressed concern about the mother’s willingness to facilitate the father’s relationship with the child.

The court ordered joint custody with the mother as primary caregiver, imposed restrictions on relocation without the father’s consent or court approval, and established a structured holiday access regime.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support, daycare contributions, and arrears, and to secure support through life insurance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside access terms agreed to in Minutes of Settlement and to suspend the respondent father's access to the parties' child until supervised access could be arranged.

Evidence included allegations of emotional instability, criminal charges, and a negative family assessment recommending sole custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The respondent father argued the settlement terms were binding and alleged misconduct by the mother, including attempts to interfere with his relationship with the child.

The court held that the best interests of the child required that access occur only in a supervised setting by a neutral third party.

The applicant's motion was granted and supervised access ordered.