Regina Marie Luyiga Senjule

The Mother sought to relocate the Son from Sault Ste.

Marie to the Barrie/Parry Sound area, citing better support networks and employment opportunities.

The Father opposed the relocation, emphasizing the Son's stable life and strong bonds with him and the paternal grandparents in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court dismissed the Mother's application, finding that while her proposed plan was reasonable, the benefits of relocation did not outweigh the significant detriment of severing the Son's existing strong emotional ties with his Father and paternal grandparents.

The decision underscored that maintaining maximum parental contact and emotional stability was in the child's best interests.

The mother brought a motion for the return of one of the parties' children, who was being overheld by the father, and for police enforcement.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to change the parenting schedule, change the child's school, and appoint a private lawyer for the children.

The court found no material change or compelling circumstances to vary the existing final consent order on an interim basis.

The father was ordered to return the child immediately, failing which police enforcement would apply.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist with the high-conflict dispute.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion for custody of the parties' two children, supervised access for the respondent father, and a restraining order, citing a history of domestic violence and a recent assault.

The father did not respond to the motion.

The court found the motion met the test for urgency due to paramount concerns for the children's safety and well-being.

The court ordered primary residence and full decision-making authority to the mother, discretionary supervised access for the father, and restricted communication between the parties.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed without prejudice, and a case conference was ordered as the next step.

The applicant sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing the suspension of his driver's licence pursuant to a Final Notice dated November 1, 2018.

The applicant had previously obtained a refraining order in August 2017 on terms requiring him to bring a motion to change the underlying support order and make specified monthly payments.

The applicant failed to comply with these terms, causing the refraining order to terminate automatically.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a refraining order in response to a Final Notice, as the statutory framework under Part V of the Family Arrears and Support Enforcement Act permits refraining orders only in response to a First Notice.

The motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial in which the mother successfully obtained an order permitting her to relocate the child to British Columbia, secured a parenting schedule favourable to her position, and established ongoing child support at $566 per month.

The father was unsuccessful on the dominant issues but succeeded on secondary matters regarding travel restrictions and spousal support.

The mother sought $5,000 in costs while the father sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the substantially successful party, fixing the amount at $3,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $100 commencing July 1, 2016.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' two children (ages 10 and 8) from Ontario to British Columbia to care for her ailing mother and pursue better employment opportunities.

The father opposed the relocation and sought custody if the move was permitted.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, determined that permitting the relocation was in the children's best interests.

The mother's plan provided greater financial security and family support, while the father had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with child support obligations and poor parenting judgment.

The court granted the relocation with modified access arrangements and increased child support.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of four children from foster care to her temporary care and custody under the supervision of the Society.

The children had been apprehended following concerns about neglect, lack of supervision, and exposure to domestic violence involving the mother’s partner.

Evidence showed a history of domestic violence, inconsistent statements by the mother to police and the court, and indications she intended to resume a relationship with the abusive partner despite a non-contact order.

Applying s. 51(2)(c) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced a risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The motion was dismissed as the children could not be adequately protected in her care at that time.

Following a family law motion involving child support, spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs claiming substantial success.

The court considered the presumptive rule that costs follow the event under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, while recognizing that success on the motion was divided.

Although neither party’s conduct justified a costs penalty, the court took into account the applicant’s prior offer to settle under Rule 18.

The court determined that the applicant had achieved success on a primary issue, namely the ordered sale of the matrimonial home, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 and made payable from the respondent’s share of the net proceeds of sale.