M. Tweyman

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and overnight parenting time with the parties' 14-month-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for a more gradual increase due to unsubstantiated allegations and the child's breastfeeding schedule.

The court found the mother's allegations unsubstantiated and noted the father's adherence to a previous temporary order.

The court granted the motion, ordering a phased increase in parenting time including overnights, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dictated at the conclusion of a family mediation.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing there was no final agreement and that mediation communications were protected by settlement privilege.

The court applied the settlement privilege exception from Bouvier, allowing the communications to be reviewed to determine if an agreement existed.

However, the court found the MOU was unenforceable as it did not comply with s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and there was no meeting of the minds, given the late hour of dictation and the mother's prompt objections.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' three children from Mt Albert to Orillia, approximately 100 kilometres away.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a parenting time schedule based on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court applied the relocation factors under section 16.92(1) of the Divorce Act, finding the move was in the children's best interests due to the mother's medical needs and support system in Orillia.

The relocation was permitted, and a modified parenting schedule was ordered to accommodate the distance.

The applicant father brought a 14B motion to re-open a costs decision, arguing his former counsel failed to include certain settlement offers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the omitted offers would not have altered the costs determination.

Noting the father's child support arrears and the excessive litigation history, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent mother and ordered that the father may not seek further relief until he complies with all support and costs orders.

The father appealed a lower court's order that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over their child, Julia, and ordered her return to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following the father's unilateral removal of Julia from the UAE.

The father sought a stay of this order pending appeal, arguing serious harm to Julia if returned.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The court dismissed the father's motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Julia's return to her habitual residence in the UAE.

The court also dismissed the mother's motion for security for costs, despite finding the appeal lacked merit, due to the serious nature of the issues involving the child's best interests.

The applicant husband requested an addendum to the trial judgment to include an inadvertently omitted divorce order and to reduce the amount of life insurance required to secure child support.

The court granted the divorce order.

Applying Katz v. Katz, the court also agreed that the original $1 million life insurance requirement could result in a windfall, as it exceeded the aggregate child support obligation.

The court amended the order, reducing the required life insurance to $400,000, with a further reduction to $100,000 when one of the children turns 16.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and equalization, the applicant sought costs of $79,000 while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably in rejecting the applicant's offers to settle, which were more favourable than the final judgment.

However, the court also noted the applicant caused delay by failing to properly account for date of marriage debts.

Considering the divided success on conduct and the respondent's limited financial means, the court awarded the applicant costs of $45,000.

The parties separated after a six-year marriage and have three children.

The mother sought sole custody, child support based on imputed income, spousal support, and equalization.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and modified the father's daily access schedule to ensure earlier return times.

The court imputed an annual income of $52,694 to the father based on undeclared tips from his employment as a hotel doorman, resulting in child support arrears of $20,715.63.

The mother was awarded compensatory spousal support for a four-year term, resulting in $8,248 in arrears, but no ongoing support.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $19,621.

In a family law motion concerning interim parenting arrangements, the father sought the return of the parties’ children to the matrimonial home after the mother unilaterally removed them without notice or court authorization.

The court reviewed allegations of abuse raised by the mother, noting they were denied, unproven, and had not resulted in findings by child protection authorities.

Emphasizing the importance of discouraging unilateral self-help measures that disrupt the existing parenting status quo, the court concluded that the father’s proposed schedule best approximated the prior parenting arrangement.

An interim order for joint parenting was granted with the father receiving regular weekend parenting time.

The order was made without prejudice pending further proceedings.