Michael A. Penny

The moving party sought a non‑removal order preventing the custodial parent from travelling with the child to Dubai and also sought changes to the pickup and drop‑off arrangements for access.

The court declined to make a blanket prohibition or authorization regarding international travel because no specific travel plan was before the court and circumstances could change.

The existing order requiring travel notice remained in force, though the notice period for travel to Dubai was extended to 90 days due to concerns associated with a non‑Hague Convention destination.

The court varied the access exchange terms, requiring the parties to conduct weekend exchanges in Kingston to more fairly distribute travel burdens and facilitate the child's relationship with the moving parent.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, production of financial disclosure, and related relief.

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with prior court orders requiring disclosure of personal and corporate financial records relevant to determining income for support purposes.

Relying on s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court held that income may be imputed where a payor fails to provide required disclosure or where income may be diverted through a corporation.

Due to incomplete disclosure and evidence of substantial unexplained deposits into personal accounts, the court imputed income to the respondent for interim support purposes.

The court also ordered further production of corporate records, granted leave for questioning, issued a non‑depletion order under the Family Law Act, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant in an application seeking to quash a municipal by-law under the City of Toronto Act.

The court had previously struck portions of an earlier affidavit for containing irrelevant historical allegations and improper innuendo about prior municipal actions.

On the renewed motion, the respondents argued the revised affidavit continued to include irrelevant references to earlier by-laws and municipal initiatives.

The court held that most of the objectionable material had been sufficiently sanitized and could remain as factual background potentially relevant to the issues, including whether the impugned by-law conferred a prohibited bonus.

However, one paragraph expressing the deponent’s concerns about public funds used in 2000 was struck as irrelevant.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2004 consent order, seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a claim that his actual income was lower than the $90,000 imputed in the order.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and had unreasonably deducted personal travel expenses from his consulting business, maintaining his imputed income at $90,000.

The court allowed retroactive adjustments to child support based on changes in the children's residence and post-secondary attendance, setting the effective notice date at March 2006.

The father's claim for overpayment of spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was ordered to be recalculated to reflect the mother's increased actual income since 2008.

The court also provided directions on the use of RESP funds and the children's required contributions to their post-secondary education expenses.

The moving party sought to vary a prior order requiring payment of child and spousal support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to loss of employment, reduced income, depression, and loss of a driver’s licence.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a significant and sustained change in circumstances or demonstrate that his reduced income reflected his true earning capacity.

The medical evidence relied upon was inadequate to establish unemployability and did not meet the standards for expert opinion evidence.

The court maintained the previously imputed income under s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to vary the support order or cancel arrears.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the Ministry’s assignment of support arrears relating to social assistance payments was confirmed.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed an appeal by a landowner regarding an official plan amendment.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider the public interest, breaching natural justice by ignoring evidence, and failing to properly apply the Planning Act and provincial Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no errors of law and concluding that the Board's decision was supported by evidence and within its jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the respondent union was a 'trade union' within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent could not be an organization of employees because its constitution allowed independent employee organizations to be members, and that it lacked an identifiable set of rules due to irregularities in the election of its founding officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the founding members could unanimously waive or vary the provisions of the union's constitution.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that $43,120 in Canadian currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, and ordering its forfeiture to the Crown.

The appellant argued the application judge improperly shifted the onus of proof.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence, which included expert testimony, a NARC test, a drug dog hit, and the bundling of the money.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that declined to strike out claims of conspiracy and negligence against individual defendants.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not meet the test under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions and the discrete pleading issues did not transcend the interests of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.