Samalie Nsubuga

The parties separated and the respondent remained in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

After the respondent failed to respond to the application or participate in the proceedings despite multiple court-ordered substituted service attempts, the applicant obtained orders for the sale of the home and exclusive possession.

Following his eviction, the respondent brought an urgent motion to set aside the orders, claiming he had no notice of the proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's evidence that he did not receive the documents implausible and concluding he had proper notice but chose to ignore the proceedings.

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 is an appeal of orders made by Justice Cleghorn on October 22, 2024, in a child protection proceeding.

The mother appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside a default order from March 21, 2023.

The father and added party A.D. appealed the removal of A.D. as a party to the proceedings.

The child, who has special needs, had been in the care of the Society for over seven years.

Justice Cleghorn dismissed the mother's motion to set aside the default, removed A.D. as a party, and placed the child in extended society care with access to parents.

All three appeals were dismissed.

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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed an order that required him to pay outstanding costs awards, failing which his motion to change child support would be struck.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, because the underlying motion to change would have continued if the costs were paid.

As an interlocutory order requires leave to appeal, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that both parties initially believed the order was final.