Nadine Barmania

The respondent mother sought urgent temporary sole custody, primary residence, and an order to travel with the parties' child (Y, under three) to Vancouver, B.C., for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a suspension of the applicant father's in-person parenting time and a restraining order.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion for an equal parenting schedule and a prohibition on removing the child from Ontario.

The court, finding the matter urgent, dismissed the mother's request to travel, citing public health risks, the federal advisory against non-essential travel, and the child's need for stability and continued contact with both parents.

The court set aside a prior joint custody order due to concerns about the father's conduct towards the mother but declined to grant sole custody, requiring further testing of allegations.

A temporary parenting schedule was established, granting the father parenting time from Thursday evening to Sunday evening weekly, with exchanges facilitated by his sister.

Requests for a s. 30 assessment, Office of the Children's Lawyer referral, and a new restraining order were dismissed without prejudice, noting the impracticality of assessments during the pandemic and the existence of a criminal restraining order.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) to prepare a Voice of the Child Report or to represent his two sons, following his motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed on procedural grounds, alleging the father lacked leave and was in contempt of an equalization payment order, and on substantive grounds, arguing another OCL report was not in the children's best interests given a recent assessment and their current well-being.

The court found the father had obtained the necessary leave and was making progress towards complying with the equalization order.

However, the motion for OCL involvement was dismissed, as the court determined it would not be in the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of minimizing their exposure to ongoing family conflict and disruption.

In this matrimonial appeal, the respondent wife moved to stay the appellant husband's appeal pending payment of an equalization amount of $334,076.84 ordered by Nordheimer J.A. The appellant had failed to comply with the payment order despite the 60-day deadline having passed.

The motion judge found that the appellant had deliberately and wilfully ignored the court order, preferring to prioritize his Canadian business interests over his matrimonial obligations.

The motion judge granted the stay of the appeal and gave the respondent leave to move forthwith to quash or dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a family law trial primarily concerning access to the parties’ child, the court considered submissions on costs.

The applicant sought a modest costs award to recover some legal preparation expenses, while the respondent claimed substantial costs as the successful party.

The court applied Rules 24(1), 24(6), and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and concluded that overall success in the litigation was mixed.

After reviewing both parties’ offers to settle under Rule 18(14), the court determined that neither party achieved an order as favourable as their respective offers.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs.