Ryan Aalto

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to compel the respondent mother to undergo a mental health assessment under s. 105(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging she suffered from schizophrenia.

He also sought the release of police records.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's evidence was based on conjecture and speculation, and that the request was an unjustified intrusion on the respondent's privacy rights.

The court also found the motion was brought to intimidate and embarrass the respondent, awarding her full indemnity costs.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change an interim consent support order, arguing his income had substantially decreased and seeking to impute income to the applicant wife.

The court excluded the husband's RRSP withdrawals from his income for support purposes, finding he used them to pay debts and support obligations.

The court imputed a minimum wage income of $30,000 to the wife prospectively, noting she had made no efforts to become self-supporting three years post-separation, but declined to impute income retroactively due to her childcare responsibilities for three children, including one with autism.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines based on the recalculated incomes.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment on his application to terminate child support for his 21-year-old son.

He argued the son was no longer a 'child of the marriage' due to poor academic performance and estrangement, and that his own income had decreased following a heart attack.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the son's status, concluding he remained a child of the marriage as he was enrolled in post-secondary studies and there was no evidence he unjustifiably repudiated the relationship with his father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the father's income and ability to pay, dismissing the summary judgment motion and ordering further financial disclosure.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the parties' subsidized three-bedroom home and for a temporary parenting schedule for their two young children.

The parties had a history of domestic altercations and frequent moves.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to return to the subsidized home with the mother, as her native status facilitated the housing application.

The father was ordered to vacate the home and was granted a temporary parenting schedule of alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights, with exchanges to occur at daycare to minimize contact between the parents.