Ralph Arnold Lee

The Respondent mother brought a motion challenging Ontario's jurisdiction to determine parenting issues for her child, Alessa, arguing Nunavut was the proper forum.

The court found that the child's habitual residence remained Nunavut, as the mother's trip to Ottawa with the child was exploratory and not a permanent relocation.

The Applicant father's unilateral withholding of the child was deemed a tactical self-help remedy that did not alter the child's habitual residence.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claim to jurisdiction, ordered the immediate return of the child to the Respondent, and directed police assistance if necessary for the child's return to Nunavut.

The Applicant mother sought full recovery costs following a successful motion to enforce parenting time.

The Respondent father failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the father's repeated failure to facilitate virtual parenting time, willful disregard for court orders, and attempts to cause harm to the mother constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Despite the finding of bad faith, the court awarded a fixed amount of $6,500, less than the full recovery sought, considering the father's limited financial means and the overall objective of fairness and reasonableness in costs awards.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached a parenting order regarding virtual and in-person parenting time with their child.

She sought specified unsupervised parenting time in Nova Scotia and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the father in wilful non-compliance due to repeated missed virtual calls, obstruction of in-person visits, and disrespectful communication.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the father's favour.

The court ordered temporary, supervised in-person parenting time for the mother in Nova Scotia for two to three weeks during the summer, with the mother responsible for travel costs.

The OCL was appointed due to concerns about the child's emotional well-being, school attendance, and academic performance.

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville brought a motion within a status review application seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The mother opposed the motion, supported by the father.

The Society alleged ongoing neglect, unhygienic living conditions, lack of supervision, domestic violence, and non-compliance with previous supervision orders.

However, since being served with the application, the mother had made significant positive changes, including separating from the father, moving to a safer home with a supportive cousin, and engaging with community and medical services for the children.

Applying Section 113(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which requires children to remain in current care unless their best interests "require" a change, the court found that while the Society's concerns were valid historically, the recent improvements meant that removal was not currently required.

This decision follows a two-day trial concerning custody and access for the parties' two children.

The father sought equal parenting time (50/50), while the mother sought joint custody with primary care to her and specific access for the father.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, giving particular consideration to the elder child's special needs for routine and stability.

The court found the mother better suited to meet the elder child's needs and ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, granting the father parenting time on alternating weekends and two mid-week evening visits.

The court also addressed the parents' communication issues, ordering the use of a communication program and emphasizing the need to avoid conflict in front of the children.

Child support and Section 7 expenses were also determined.

The appellant, the only son of the deceased, appealed an order by the application judge that the deceased did not create a life interest in the family home in his favour.

The deceased's will expressed a wish that the son use the family home as his home "for as long as he wishes," but also provided that the home be transferred to his three children jointly.

The appellant lived in the home but failed to maintain it, resulting in disrepair and tax arrears.

The application judge concluded that the deceased did not intend to create a life interest and ordered the home sold.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants sought a declaration of substantial interference with their right-of-way for boat launching over the respondents' land, due to the respondents' construction of a dock and placement of boats.

The court applied the test of substantial interference, considering whether the right-of-way could be substantially and practically exercised as conveniently as before.

The application was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish substantial interference, retaining approximately half of the waterfront for boat launching.

The court also commented on the importance of community relationships in neighbourhood disputes.