Samalie Nsubuga

At a family settlement conference, neither side uploaded required conference materials to the proper Case Center bundle despite repeated prior non-compliance in the same proceeding.

After hearing submissions, the court applied Family Law Rule 24(11) and the governing practice directions requiring timely and correct uploading of materials.

The court held that counsel, not the court, bear responsibility for proper uploads and that repeated failures wasted scarce judicial resources and frustrated the primary objective under Rule 2.

The court made personal cost-consequence orders against both counsel, prohibiting them from charging specified fees and disbursements tied to the wasted conference date.

This decision addresses interim parenting and relocation in a family law dispute.

The mother sought to relocate the parties’ five-year-old child from London, Ontario to the Turks and Caicos Islands, where she had secured employment.

The father opposed the move and sought primary care of the child.

The court reviewed the parties’ conflicting evidence regarding caregiving, family violence, and the child’s best interests.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and relevant case law, the court ordered that the child remain with the father in Ontario pending trial, with extended summer parenting time for the mother in Turks and Caicos.

The court emphasized the need for stability, the unresolved allegations of family violence, and the importance of a full trial to resolve factual disputes.

The applicant father brought an ex parte application under section 7 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to obtain information (mother's and child's addresses, mother's employer) from the Minister of Justice Canada to enforce an existing parenting order.

The court found that the father had taken reasonable steps to locate the mother and child and that the application met the criteria under section 9 of the Act, including providing police and vulnerable sector checks and affirming the sole purpose was enforcement.

The court was satisfied the order would not jeopardize the safety or security of the mother or child, despite historical concerns that had been resolved by a subsequent consent order.

The court authorized a court official to make the application to the Minister, ordering that notice be sent to the mother and child as per section 12.1 of the Act, and deferred a decision on further confidentiality restrictions until the information is received.