Paul Skeggs

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to relocate the parties' two children from Sault Ste.

Marie to London, Ontario, where she had moved with her new spouse.

The parties had previously shared parenting equally.

Applying the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz, the court found that the children were most closely connected to Sault Ste.

Marie, where they had lived most of their lives, attended school, and had established social and family connections.

The court dismissed the motion, ordering that the children's primary residence remain with the respondent father in Sault Ste.

Marie, with joint custody continuing.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated, and the mother sought to relocate with their two young children to Montreal, Quebec.

The father brought an urgent motion to keep the children in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario, and sought interim custody.

The court considered the children's best interests, noting the older child's strong ties to Sault Ste.

Marie and significant child protection concerns regarding the mother's parenting capacity.

The court ordered that the children reside in Sault Ste.

Marie and granted interim custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the father.

The client brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Report and Certificate of Assessment regarding her former solicitor's account.

The client, who was self-represented at the assessment hearing, argued she was denied natural justice because the Hearings Officer did not allow her to make closing submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the Hearings Officer failed to assist the self-represented client and explicitly prevented her from making submissions on the ultimate issue, thereby violating the audi alteram partem rule.

The Report and Certificate of Assessment, along with related enforcement mechanisms, were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different Hearings Officer.