Natalie Javed

The decision concerns a family law dispute regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for two children following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought final orders for parenting time, child support, and related matters.

The respondent mother's pleadings were struck for repeated non-compliance with court orders, and the trial proceeded uncontested.

The court ordered regular parenting time for the father, maintained the mother as primary residence parent, and set child support and cost-sharing arrangements, declining to use enforcement mechanisms such as police enforcement or automatic residence change.

The applicant and respondent disputed the proper venue for their family law proceeding concerning parenting time, specifically whether it should be Bruce County (where children formerly lived) or Simcoe County (where they now live).

The court applied Rule 5(1)(b) of the Family Law Rules and s. 22(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, which define "habitual residence." The court found that the applicant had impliedly consented to the children's move to Simcoe County, making Simcoe County their habitual residence.

Consequently, Barrie was determined to be the correct courthouse for the proceeding.

The Applicant sought costs following the Respondent's successful motion to set aside an ex parte temporary order.

The court found the Applicant guilty of bad faith conduct due to material misrepresentations made to the court and unreasonable behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and non-disclosure.

Despite the Respondent's offer to settle not strictly complying with Rule 18(14), it was considered a bona fide attempt at compromise under Rule 18(16).

The Applicant's financial hardship was not considered a mitigating factor given the finding of bad faith and similar modest means of both parties.

The court awarded the Respondent full recovery costs of $8,300, payable forthwith.

The Applicant Father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order and custody of the children, alleging abuse by the Respondent Mother.

The Respondent Mother brought a cross-motion to set aside the ex parte orders and for care of the children.

The court found the Applicant's affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding primary caregiving, abuse allegations, and the children's habitual residence.

The court set aside the ex parte orders, granted temporary primary residence to the Respondent Mother in Scarborough, and dismissed the Applicant's request for a restraining order, finding no credible evidence of abuse or reasonable grounds for fear for safety.