R. Sonya Jain

The Applicant sought an order to travel to Thailand with the child for three weeks during the school year.

The Respondent opposed, citing risks of abduction, dangers in Thailand, and academic detriment to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while many of the Respondent's concerns were speculative, the child's significant academic struggles made missing three weeks of school not in her best interests.

The court emphasized the importance of school attendance, especially for a struggling student.

This ruling on costs followed a motion regarding custody and access.

The applicant sought costs on both full and partial indemnity bases, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs for the period from September 11 to October 5, 2018, and entirely dismissed the respondent's claim for costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the period from October 25 to December 15, 2018, totaling $14,048.28, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable during that later period.

In a bifurcated family law trial, the applicant sought declarations regarding the validity of the parties' marriage, their spousal status, and their date of separation.

The respondent claimed the parties were never validly married and never cohabited as spouses.

The court found the applicant's evidence highly credible, supported by photographs and official documents, while rejecting the respondent's testimony as inconsistent and unbelievable.

The court declared the marriage valid, found the parties cohabited as spouses from September 2003 until June 1, 2011, and ordered the Certificate of Pending Litigation to remain on the respondent's property.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order for week-about parenting time pending the outcome of his Motion to Change a final consent order.

The parties had a high-conflict relationship with conflicting evidence regarding their post-order reconciliation and parenting arrangements.

The court dismissed the motion in part, ordering the parties to continue following the previous final consent order with specific variations for holiday access exchanges, and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to her primary care after the child was placed with the respondent father following the mother's temporary psychiatric episodes.

The father opposed, seeking to maintain primary care.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found that the mother's episodes were temporary and appropriately addressed.

The court emphasized returning to the pre-existing status quo where the mother was the primary caregiver, as the urgent situation had passed and the mother could safely resume care.

The father's attempt to change custody was deemed opportunistic.

The court ordered the child's return to the mother's primary care with a clarified parenting schedule and ordered both parties to cooperate with Family Connexions.