Michael Walz

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing motions regarding the mother's request to relocate their child to Sudbury.

The mother had moved to Sudbury for better economic opportunities and to live with her new partner.

The court considered the father's history of a severe drinking and driving incident, which raised concerns about his sobriety and the child's safety in his care.

Finding no such risks with the mother's plan, the court granted interim custody to the mother and permitted the child's relocation to Sudbury, with access to the father.

No costs were awarded as the court questioned the urgency of the mother's initial move.

Two motions to change were tried together concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The father sought to vary a prior order requiring supervised access to allow unsupervised access, while the paternal grandparents sought unsupervised access after years of supervised visits.

The court found that the children had a longstanding, positive bond with the grandparents and that the mother’s decision to restrict contact to supervised access following a disputed incident was disproportionate and arbitrary.

Unsupervised access for the grandparents was ordered.

The father’s request for unsupervised access was denied due to ongoing instability, including criminal conduct, substance use history, and inconsistent parenting involvement.

The court also declined to order the children’s return from Windsor to Sault Ste.

Marie, finding they were well settled and that relocation remained in their best interests.

In a family law dispute concerning spousal support and equalization, the responding party filed affidavit materials referencing settlement negotiations, offers to settle, case conference briefs, and solicitor-client communications.

The moving party sought an order striking those portions of the record on the basis of settlement privilege, solicitor-client privilege, and the confidentiality provisions of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the governing common law principles protecting settlement communications and the statutory confidentiality regime under Rules 17 and 18.

It held that settlement discussions, offers to settle, conference brief materials, and solicitor-client communications are presumptively privileged and cannot be included in the court record absent exceptional circumstances.

Most of the impugned passages and exhibits were therefore struck from the record.

Following a successful motion brought by the applicant, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the applicant succeeded, the respondent’s position was not entirely without merit and there was no egregious conduct justifying full indemnity costs.

Taking into account the complexity of the motion, the preparation required, and certain duplication of work by counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with limited recoverable work.

The applicant father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two children, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child support, an order securing the father's personal injury settlement funds, and leave to amend her pleadings.

The court granted the father unsupervised daytime access, finding that he had successfully managed his chronic pain and prescription drug dependency.

The court dismissed the mother's request to secure the settlement funds, noting no history of asset dissipation or failure to pay support.

The mother was permitted to amend her pleadings to add a Family Law Act claim, and the father was ordered to pay interim child support based on a notional income derived from his settlement funds.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and a subsequent court order, arguing he lacked capacity, the applicant wife failed to disclose her pension, and the agreement was unconscionable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the husband understood the agreement, the wife had disclosed the pension, and the settlement was not unconscionable as it reflected a fairly negotiated compromise between the parties.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded interim access to the children, including additional overnight periods, a week‑about summer schedule, travel notification requirements for the mother, and specified telephone access.

The court found that the parties had conflicting factual accounts that could not be resolved on motion and that the matter was scheduled for trial within a few months.

The court declined to substantially alter the existing interim custody and access order.

Limited adjustments were made to establish specific summer access dates and structured telephone access to reduce conflict.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing his motion to terminate child support and instead increasing support for an adult child enrolled in full-time education.

The trial judge applied s. 3(2)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the father’s income, finding insufficient evidence to conduct a s. 3(2)(b) analysis regarding the child’s needs and means.

The appellant argued errors relating to disclosure, the child’s refusal to communicate with him, failure to consider disability benefits, and failure to impute income to the mother.

The appellate court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion, correctly placed the evidentiary burden on the party seeking termination, and made no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final joint custody order, seeking shared custody of the parties' child on a week-about basis and a corresponding adjustment to child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties forming new blended families and the child's increased behavioural issues.

However, the court dismissed the father's claim for shared custody, finding that the parents' high conflict, inability to communicate, and differing parenting styles made shared or joint custody unworkable and contrary to the child's best interests.

The court varied the existing order to grant sole custody to the respondent mother, reduced the father's access to alternate weekends to minimize transitions, and ordered the father to pay $660.79 per month in child support.