Michelle A. Raithby

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to remove the respondent father's counsel, set aside interim minutes of settlement regarding parenting time, and expand her parenting time.

The mother argued the minutes of settlement should be set aside because she believed cannabis use was exempted from the drug testing requirements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the minutes of settlement were clear and unambiguous in requiring supervised parenting time if the mother tested positive for cannabis.

The court ordered that parenting time continue in accordance with the interim minutes of settlement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, seeking to impute income to the respondent father.

The father had unilaterally reduced his child support payments multiple times post-separation and provided insufficient evidence of his current income or inability to work overtime.

The court imputed the father's income at $97,000 under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support based on that amount.

The mother's request for contribution to childcare expenses was dismissed as she was working minimal hours.

The matter was transferred to London on consent.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The primary issue was the respondent's early retirement and whether income should be imputed to him.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed, as his retirement was voluntary and not due to health or incapacity, and he had not sought new employment.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on an average of his pre-retirement earnings, including commissions and capital gains.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $8,000 per month and maintained the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy.

Following a seven-day construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered a modest amount but the defendants succeeded on the key issue of defective workmanship, the court determined costs.

Both parties had advanced unreasonable positions at times, but the plaintiff's initial intransigence and failure to acknowledge obvious deficiencies were significant factors.

The court awarded the defendants $15,000 in costs, to be set off against the plaintiff's trial judgment.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for the unpaid balance of a contract to build the shell of a log home, registering a construction lien against the property.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging numerous construction deficiencies, incomplete work, and Building Code violations.

After a seven-day trial involving multiple expert witnesses, the court found that the plaintiff had breached the contract through poor workmanship and unauthorized deviations from the plans.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claim by the cost of necessary repairs and awarded the defendants damages for delay, resulting in a net judgment for the plaintiff of $30,595.63.

The appellant father sought to relocate with his seven-year-old child from Kincardine to Whitby, relying on a notice provision in a consent order.

The motion judge held that a motion to change was required and dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the proposed move contradicted the schooling and access clauses of the order, necessitating a motion to change.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the father's concerns about the stigma of past false abuse allegations were foreseeable at the time of the original order.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.