Rachel Zweig

The respondent husband, M.D., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law proceeding, which the applicant wife, N.C., disputed.

The court examined whether a binding agreement had been reached, specifically focusing on two essential terms: an indemnity clause and a $350,000 credit clause.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the question of whether a binding deal existed, concluding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Consequently, the husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought unsupervised parenting time with his daughter after a lengthy absence.

The respondent opposed, citing concerns about the applicant's mental health, alleged sexual addiction, and past incidents of family violence, arguing for supervised access.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, found that the respondent's concerns did not justify supervised access or a condition of counselling.

The motion for parenting time was granted, with a gradual re-integration schedule ordered, and an intermediary appointed for exchanges.

The respondent's request for supervised access was denied.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the school placement of the parties' two children from Orillia to Barrie.

The mother, who had historically been the primary caregiver, recently moved to Minesing and faced significant financial hardship and lengthy daily commutes to transport the children to their current schools.

The respondent father opposed the change, relying on the children's expressed preferences to remain at their current schools and the stability of the status quo.

The court granted the motion on a temporary basis, finding that the mother's financial desperation, the reduction in commute times, and her historical role as the primary caregiver outweighed the children's preferences and the status quo, making the change in the children's best interests.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' three children vaccinated against COVID-19 without the applicant father's consent.

The mother relied on public health recommendations and previous case law taking judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the vaccines were experimental and seeking to present expert evidence at trial.

The court declined to take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, finding the issue to be controversial and capable of dispute by reasonable people.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was deferred to trial to allow the father to present expert evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce various terms of a domestic contract regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and a previous costs award.

The respondent cross-moved for related relief.

The court ordered the added party to pay the outstanding costs award of $25,800.

The court also directed the parties to calculate the cost of living adjustment for child support and ordered the respondent to pay fixed arrears for nanny, extracurricular, and therapy expenses.

Finally, the court ordered the parties to negotiate adequate life insurance security and exchange annual proof of RESP contributions.