Ryan Michael William Leckie

On a temporary parenting motion, the moving party sought a graduated parenting-time order and related communication and counselling relief after a breakdown in parent-child contact following separation.

The responding party and the child’s counsel opposed compelled parenting time and asked that the child’s preferences govern contact.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court declined to force parenting time immediately but imposed interim conduct, communication, and information-sharing terms designed to support eventual reconnection.

The order was made without prejudice and the motion was adjourned for review, with leave to vary without proving a material change if progress is insufficient.

No costs were ordered due to mixed success.

The decision addresses whether Eunice Sukhnandan should be added as a party to a family law proceeding between Stephanie Nadon and Glenn Sukhnandan, in order to protect her alleged financial interest in family property.

The court reviews the validity of a purported trust interest in the former matrimonial home, the traceability of proceeds, and the limitation period for such a claim.

The court finds the trust document unreliable, determines that any claim by Eunice against Stephanie is without merit and time-barred, and dismisses the motion to add Eunice as a party, awarding costs to Stephanie Nadon.

This decision addresses the costs award following an uncontested family law trial.

The applicant sought spousal support and other benefits as per a separation agreement, which the respondent had failed to honour.

The court found the respondent was aware of proceedings but uncooperative.

Applying the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including indemnification, encouraging settlements, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the applicant $3,000.00 in inclusive costs, finding the request reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the need for multiple motions.

The applicant sought spousal support and enforcement of insurance and RRSP beneficiary designations as per a separation agreement, after the respondent failed to comply with its terms.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial due to the respondent's default.

The court ordered a lump sum spousal support payment, calculated based on the agreed duration and an imputed income, and mandated proof of compliance with the insurance and beneficiary designations, noting the respondent's history of non-compliance and attempts to avoid obligations.

This decision addresses multiple motions arising from a marital separation, including parenting arrangements, venue transfer, and contempt allegations.

The court declined to vary the existing temporary parenting order, finding no material change in circumstances.

It ordered the case transferred from North Bay to Haileybury, determining the children's habitual residence at separation was in Temiskaming District.

The respondent's motion to find the applicant in contempt for alleged breaches of virtual parenting time was dismissed, as the court found no intentional breach and noted the children's age-appropriate attention spans.

An Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) order was also made.

The respondent, Walter Kennedy, moved for an order for partition and sale of a home solely owned by the applicant, Sherri Romain, located on Nipissing First Nation land.

The motion, essentially seeking partial summary judgment, raised complex issues regarding property rights on reserve land and the applicability of the Nipissing First Nation Matrimonial Real Property Law, as the Family Law Act and Partition Act were deemed inapplicable.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the highly conflicting evidence regarding contributions to the home and reiterating the Court of Appeal's strong caution against granting partial summary judgments, as it would not dispose of the case or substantially shorten the trial.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the responding parent moved for a contempt finding arising from repeated non-compliance with interim week-about parenting orders concerning two of the children.

Applying the contempt framework, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party had notice of clear orders and failed to take the concrete parental steps necessary to require the children’s compliance, instead leaving them with the impression that parenting time was optional.

The court accepted that caution is required in family contempt matters and, prioritizing the children’s best interests, declined to proceed immediately to a formal contempt order.

A staged reintegration order was imposed for June through August 2022, with the original week-about regime to resume on September 1, 2022, and a further status hearing scheduled.

The parties brought competing motions regarding parenting time and decision-making for their two young children.

The mother sought to restrict the father's parenting time based on allegations of physical abuse, which the Children's Aid Society could not verify.

The court found the father's evidence more credible, dismissed the mother's motions, and granted the father unsupervised parenting time according to a previously agreed-upon schedule, along with shared decision-making responsibility.

Both parties' requests for a police enforcement clause were dismissed.

The applicant mother moved for week-about access to her two children, who had been living with the respondent father since separation.

The father opposed, citing the mother's ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, which had led to CAS involvement.

The court found that the current access arrangements lacked structure and required a change.

However, due to the mother's ongoing issues and the negative impact on the children, the court denied week-about access and instead ordered a temporary weekend access regime.