Ralph H. Frayne

In a contested mobility and custody dispute, the applicant father opposed the respondent mother relocating the parties’ child from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court considered the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act and the principles from Gordon v Goertz.

Evidence addressed the child’s primary caregiving history, educational needs, family support networks, and the practical consequences of relocation.

Although the Office of the Children’s Lawyer recommended that the child remain in Ontario, the court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and was best positioned to support the child’s developmental and educational needs.

Custody was granted to the mother with permission for the child to reside with her in Victoria, British Columbia, along with provisions for child support and future arrangements for access.

A costs endorsement following a family law trial concerning child support issues.

The successful party sought recovery of trial costs.

The court held that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and fixed the amount payable.

The costs were deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of obtaining child support, allowing enforcement through a support deduction order.

A family law trial addressing parenting access and child support following the separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant father sought access to the parties’ two children, while the respondent mother opposed unsupervised contact due to a pattern of threats, intimidation, and abusive conduct by the father, including criminal convictions for uttering death threats and breach of recognizance.

The court found the father lacked insight into his conduct and that his behaviour had caused significant emotional harm and fear to the mother and children.

Concluding that even supervised access had failed due to the father’s non‑compliance, the court ordered that the father have no access and no decision‑making or informational rights regarding the children.

The court also fixed retroactive child support in a lump sum and ordered ongoing support based on an imputed income.