Michael H. Barnhart

The applicant father sought an order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating with their two children from Ottawa to Cobourg, Ontario.

The mother proposed the move to live with her new partner, who resided in Stoney Creek, choosing Cobourg as a halfway point.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and considered the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020.

Finding that the move would significantly disrupt the children's lives, impair their relationship with their father, and remove them from their established support systems, the court concluded the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to remain ordinarily resident in Ottawa.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following an urgent motion heard on September 2, 2020.

The applicant, who was the more successful party on the motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis of $25,872.48.

The respondent argued these costs were excessive and proposed $3,000.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules on costs, found the applicant's claimed legal fees to be excessive for a short motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the applicant.

Following the settlement of a family law application on the day of trial, the applicant sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was markedly more successful and her offers to settle were reasonable.

The respondent behaved unreasonably by resisting child support and refusing to share the value of the matrimonial home, and failed to make any offer to settle.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500.

The parties brought a motion concerning the implementation of a mediated final separation agreement.

A dispute arose over whether the respondent could deduct disputed special or extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines from child support payable to the applicant.

The court held that permitting unilateral offsets against child support would undermine the predictability and regularity of support payments and could create arbitrariness and conflict contrary to the best interests of the children.

The agreement was ordered into effect with amendments removing the offset provision and requiring proof of payment for reimbursement of extraordinary expenses.

Additional financial adjustments and administrative orders were made, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Saskatchewan, child support, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The parties separated following an incident of domestic violence that led to the father's arrest.

The mother subsequently moved with the children to Saskatchewan to live near her family.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father struggled with alcohol abuse and had failed to pay child support.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the relocation, finding it in the children's best interests.

The father was granted supervised access and ordered to pay child support based on imputed income.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.