Pascale G. Turcotte

The appellant father appealed a motions judge's decision finding that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine custody, access, and support issues for the parties' child, rather than the Quebec Superior Court.

The father also appealed the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the law and made factual findings supported by the evidence, including that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that a prior Quebec parenting agreement was void due to reconciliation and lack of notice to the mother.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to introduce fresh evidence and upheld the costs award.

Multiple competing motions in a family law proceeding concerning custody, access, child support, security for costs, affidavit evidence, and disclosure.

Each parent sought interim sole custody of the child, alleging conflict and concerns about the other parent’s conduct.

The court held that neither party demonstrated a material change in circumstances sufficient to disturb the existing 50/50 custody arrangement, particularly with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer newly appointed.

The court ordered minor modifications to the exchange schedule to reduce parental conflict, ordered set‑off child support based on the parties’ incomes, and struck portions of the mother’s affidavit as irrelevant, hearsay, or argumentative.

Requests for security for costs, Children’s Aid Society disclosure, and police enforcement were dismissed.

The respondent brought motions under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to vary a spousal support order following his retirement from employment with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

He argued that the reduction in income after retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the terms of the parties’ separation agreement, which allowed variation upon retirement but did not automatically treat retirement as a material change.

Reviewing the context of the negotiations and the timing of the retirement shortly after the settlement, the court concluded that the retirement was reasonably foreseeable and inconsistent with the parties’ intention to provide ten years of support.

The court therefore held that no material change in circumstances had been established and dismissed the motions.