Nigel Andrew Macleod Smith

The applicant father brought an urgent pre-Case Conference motion seeking to reverse a unilateral change in school placement for the parties' six-year-old child, made by the respondent mother shortly after separation.

The mother had transferred the child from her established school in Hamilton to a school in Burlington, where the mother was temporarily residing with her parents.

The court held that the child's long-standing school placement constituted a status quo deserving protection under the best interests of the child analysis, and that no compelling justification existed to ratify the unilateral change.

The minor inconvenience of additional travel time did not outweigh the detriment of disrupting the child's established school environment.

The motion was granted and the child was ordered returned to her former school immediately.

On a summary judgment motion in a grandmother-contact case, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the Hryniak summary judgment framework, and the best-interests analysis under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court gave primary weight to the children’s safety, stability, and independently expressed preferences.

The court found that one child’s views were unequivocally opposed to contact, while the other was open only to highly structured and supervised contact after past boundary-violating conduct by the grandmother.

The motion to dismiss the application was granted in part: no contact was ordered for one child, limited supervised contact was ordered for the other, the request for a leave requirement was refused, and all remaining claims were dismissed.

The applicant moved for financial disclosure from her former spouse in the context of a motion to change child support.

The court found that the motion was improperly briefed by both parties, with voluminous and confusing materials filed at the last minute.

Despite the procedural deficiencies, the court ruled on the outstanding undertakings and refusals from the respondent's questioning, ordering him to provide the requested financial information.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's failure to provide a timely costs outline and the disproportionate nature of the costs claimed.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to be declared a Special Party under the Family Law Rules and to have his sister appointed as his Legal Representative.

The applicant, who resides in a retirement home, was diagnosed with dementia and assessed as having a major neurocognitive disorder.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and the legal test for incapacity, concluding that the applicant was mentally incapable of dealing with the complex family law issues in the proceeding.

The motion was granted, and the applicant's sister was appointed as his Legal Representative.

The applicant and respondent disagreed on their date of separation, which was relevant to claims for divorce, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant claimed the separation date was September 9, 2017, while the respondent claimed it was March 7, 2014.

The court conducted a trial on this discrete issue.

After reviewing the parties' living arrangements, financial affairs, and credibility, the court found the respondent's evidence more reliable.

The court concluded that the parties began living separate and apart on March 7, 2014, following a domestic incident, and that there was no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation after that date.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.