Nan Zheng

On a temporary motion in a long-running family case, the moving party sought immediate implementation of a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule based on selected pages from an updated s. 112 OCL report, and also sought related child support changes.

The court held that varying a temporary parenting order requires a material change and exceptional circumstances demonstrated by clear, compelling evidence, with strong caution against repeated interim re-litigation and against adopting untested assessment recommendations before trial.

The motion record was found deficient because only recommendation pages were filed and the evidentiary context was not provided, and no urgency was established to justify disruption of the existing status quo.

The court dismissed the parenting variation request, noted procedural missteps regarding variation of a final support order, and directed the matter back to combined settlement and trial scheduling.

Costs were resolved on consent with payment timelines for current and prior costs awards.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings, order supervised parenting time, grant temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and disburse the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant's conduct to be egregious, characterized by numerous breaches of court orders, vexatious litigation, and abusive behaviour.

The court granted the majority of the Respondent's requests, striking the Applicant's pleadings (with an exception for participation in parenting issues at trial), ordering supervised parenting time at the Applicant's sole cost, granting the Respondent temporary sole decision-making responsibility, and directing the release of matrimonial home proceeds to the Respondent.

The court declined to order a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant, finding the conduct, while troubling, did not meet the threshold for such an order, particularly given the imposition of supervised parenting.

A request for a restraining order against the Respondent's family members was also denied due to insufficient evidence and statutory limitations.

The applicant father brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside or vary a 2018 final order regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

He alleged the order was obtained by fraud because the respondent mother misrepresented facts about where the children lived and her income.

The court found that the father had wilfully ignored the 2018 proceedings despite having notice, and failed to prove fraud.

The motion was dismissed, save for minor calculation errors conceded by the mother.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the corporation failed to adequately address ongoing water leaks in her unit, committed unauthorized entries, and acted abusively.

The court found that while the corporation's communication was deficient and it committed one unlawful entry, it had fulfilled its duty to maintain and repair the common elements by conducting extensive investigations and repairs.

The court concluded that the corporation's conduct, viewed in context, was not harsh, vindictive, or oppressive.

The application was dismissed.