Odette Rwigamba

The applicant sought interim shared custody of a young child, while the respondent opposed the request.

The court held that shared custody was not in the child’s best interests on the interim record but ordered expanded access including periodic overnight parenting time.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay guideline child support and interim spousal support after considering the parties’ incomes, including questions surrounding the respondent’s potential rental income from property abroad.

The interim parenting arrangement was set to operate for three months to assess its effectiveness.

A parenting and child support dispute between separated parents concerning custody, school choice, travel, and income determination for support purposes.

The court found both parents capable and ordered joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement while granting the mother final decision-making authority if disputes arose, subject to specific limits regarding the child’s school and relocation distance.

The court addressed travel arrangements allowing the child to visit extended family abroad and imposed procedural requirements for travel consent.

In assessing child support, the court imputed additional income to the self‑employed father after reviewing deductions and rental property income.

The father was ordered to pay monthly child support and full section 7 expenses, and costs were awarded to the mother.

Following competing interim motions in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $11,368, arguing he had been substantially successful and that the applicant had taken unreasonable positions.

The court reviewed the cost principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the presumptive entitlement of a successful party to costs, the relevance of offers to settle, and the impact of unreasonable conduct.

While the respondent had greater success overall, the applicant succeeded on several important issues.

The court also considered that the respondent had breached an interim separation agreement by failing to return to Canada with the children, which contributed to the litigation.

In the circumstances, the court concluded that success was divided and declined to award costs to either party.

Motion to vary child support and related family law orders.

The father sought a reduction of guideline child support on the basis that he had seven additional children with other partners and argued all nine children should be treated equally in calculating his obligations.

The mother opposed the reduction and sought an order requiring contribution to section 7 expenses, including childcare, and requested a restraining order due to a past assault.

The court partially reduced the guideline support amount in recognition of the father's obligations to other children but declined to order payment of section 7 expenses.

A limited restraining order prohibiting harassment was granted for a five‑year term.

Following a motion addressing temporary parenting arrangements for a young child, the court was asked to determine the issue of costs.

The respondent mother sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was the successful party on custody, access conditions, appointment of the Children’s Lawyer, child support, and disclosure.

The applicant father argued that both parties had partial success and that any costs should be offset against alleged withdrawals from a joint account or deferred until the conclusion of the proceeding.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party but noted the applicant achieved limited success on access and information rights.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering fairness and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs.

On an interim parenting motion involving a young child, the court was asked to determine temporary custody and access in the context of highly conflicting allegations including abuse, parental alienation, and interference with access.

Police and child protection investigations had occurred, but the evidentiary record remained limited and untested.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis, the court emphasized stability, the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions, and the need to minimize parental conflict while preserving meaningful contact with both parents.

Temporary custody was granted to the mother with structured access to the father and restrictions relating to the paternal grandfather.

The court also ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assist in determining final custody and access issues.

Supplementary reasons addressing an omission in earlier reasons regarding the commencement date for interim spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The court had previously imputed income to the respondent after finding he remained in France contrary to an agreement to return to Canada where he had been gainfully employed.

While the earlier reasons declined to determine arrears of spousal support, the court clarified the start date for interim payments.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $1,300 per month beginning July 1, 2013.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after temporarily moving to France so their sons could attend a soccer academy.

The father refused to return to Ontario as agreed and sought interim child and spousal support.

The mother brought a motion to sever the divorce claim.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant the divorce and order corollary relief, as both parties remained ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the father, noting his reduced income in France was self-imposed, and ordered the mother to pay interim child and spousal support based on the imputed income.