The applicant mother sought a temporary order to relocate with the parties' three children to Alberta or, alternatively, outside the Greater Toronto Area, citing rising living costs and alleged harassment by the father.

The respondent father opposed the motion, raising concerns about the relocation plan's specifics and the mother's non-compliance with the existing parenting order.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests or compelling reasons for temporary relocation.

The court emphasized the mother's non-compliance with the current parenting order, the vagueness of her relocation plan, the lack of the children's views (especially the eldest child's school choice), and the potential negative impact on the father's parenting time.

This trial concerned parenting time and child support for the parties' 13-year-old twin daughters.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the father and retroactive child support.

The respondent father opposed supervised access and claimed inability to pay child support.

The court found significant family violence perpetrated by the father, his poor judgment, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court ordered supervised parenting time at a professional agency, imputed income to the father due to intentional underemployment, and ordered retroactive child support, fixing arrears at $18,000.

This is an interim ruling on the admissibility of documentary evidence for motions for summary judgment in a medical negligence action.

The self-represented plaintiff, Cary Beazley, alleged delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against numerous physicians and a hospital.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court addressed the admissibility of 83 documents relied upon by the plaintiff, many of which were incomplete, unsworn, or linked via hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is extended to self-represented litigants, fundamental evidentiary rules, such as the requirement for hard copies, proper authentication, and logical probative value, must still be met.

Many of the plaintiff's documents were excluded for failing to meet these criteria, including a video recording of testimony due to lack of authentication and internet information for lack of reliability.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change a support order.

The applicant, who successfully defended the motion, sought full recovery costs.

The court considered the modern costs rules and principles, including reasonableness and proportionality.

It declined to apply the full costs consequences of Family Law Rules subrule 18(14) to the applicant's offer to settle, finding it unreasonable due to the short acceptance period given to the self-represented respondent and its predetermination of costs.

Despite the respondent's modest means, his unreasonable conduct, including failure to work, provide financial disclosure, and make an offer to settle, warranted a costs award.

The court fixed costs at $4,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the respondent in monthly installments.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion for final orders regarding the child E., including joint custody to the father and paternal grandmother, decision-making authority to the father, and discretionary supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed, seeking joint custody and generous unsupervised access.

The court applied the Hryniak framework for summary judgment, with the caution required in child protection cases (Kawartha principles).

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's untreated mental health issues, history of instability, and failure to engage with services.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, finding them to be in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's opposing requests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order that the child, D.B., was in need of protection, placement in extended society care with no access for adoption planning, and statutory findings regarding identity.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for a trial and the child's return.

The court found overwhelming evidence of risk to the child due to the mother's untreated mental health issues, anger, and unstable living situation, and her inability to engage with services.

The motion was granted, finding the child in need of protection and ordering extended society care with limited, non-physical access for the mother.

The father brought a motion for expanded access to his young child, including overnight visits, while the mother brought a cross-motion to restrict the father's access to supervised visits only.

The mother alleged that the child had suffered unexplained injuries, including bruises and sunburns, while in the father's care and that he was unable to meet the child's health and dietary needs.

The father denied the allegations and relied on positive observation notes from supervised access centres and a Child and Family Services investigation that found no substantiated concerns.

The court granted the father's motion for overnight access, finding that the mother's evidence did not support her claims and that her concerns were disproportionate to the neutral third-party evidence.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to restrict access.