Natasha Chettiar

The father sought an interim order for joint decision-making and increased parenting time for their child.

The mother opposed, arguing for the status quo based on her primary caregiver role and concerns about the father's work schedule and the child's reactions to transitions.

The court found that the father had not acquiesced to the current schedule, which was largely a result of the mother's unilateral actions.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering joint decision-making and a gradual increase in the father's parenting time towards a 50/50 week-on/week-off schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The applicant father brought a motion to restore equal shared parenting time, while the respondent mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority following unverified allegations of inappropriate touching by the father's older son.

The court found discrepancies in the mother's evidence regarding the separation date and the allegations.

Given the children's school registration and the distance between the parents' residences, the court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother during the week and with the father on weekends, pending an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant wife sought spousal support under the Divorce Act.

The respondent husband opposed the application, arguing the parties were validly divorced in Syria in 2008.

A focused hearing was held to determine whether the Syrian divorce should be recognized in Canada.

The court found that Syria lacked jurisdiction as neither party was domiciled there, nor did they have a real and substantial connection to Syria at the time of the divorce.

Furthermore, the court held that the Syrian divorce process, which denied the wife the ability to contest the divorce, breached Canadian principles of natural justice.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce and allowed the wife's spousal support application to proceed.

This costs decision followed a five-day trial concerning unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and unpaid monies.

The applicant, Danielle Belair, sought over $100,000, while the respondent, Marcel Bourgon, pursued over $76,000.

The trial judge awarded Ms. Belair a nominal amount of $818.64 and dismissed all other claims.

Considering the parties' conduct and Mr. Bourgon's reasonable settlement offers, which were significantly better than the trial outcome for Ms. Belair, the court fixed costs at $75,673.85, payable by Ms. Belair to Mr. Bourgon.

The parties separated after a five-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought over $100,000 for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, claiming she significantly contributed to the respondent's dog grooming and breeding business.

The respondent counterclaimed for unpaid rent and repair costs.

The court dismissed both primary claims, finding the applicant exaggerated her involvement in the business and the respondent's invoices had already been paid.

The court awarded the applicant $818.64 for her share of jointly owned dogs and puppies, and granted the respondent sole ownership of the dogs.