3 total
The court dismissed the mother's application to relocate the children and the father's motion to vary parenting time.
The applicant sought an order to relocate with the children from Oakville to Sarnia and to vary the existing parenting time schedule.
She also requested retroactive and ongoing child support, including Section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security.
The respondent opposed the relocation and sought to vary the parenting time schedule regardless of the relocation outcome.
The court denied the applicant's proposed relocation, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the significant risk it posed to their relationships with the respondent and their half-sister, exacerbated by the applicant's diminished view of the respondent's parental role.
The court also dismissed the respondent's request to vary the Final Order, determining that no material change in circumstances had been proven.
The applicant's claims for child support and life insurance were also dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Interim relocation motion dismissed as premature pending further evidence on children's best interests.
The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' two children from Oakville to Sarnia.
The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it was premature and would negatively impact the children, particularly one child who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and struggles with transitions.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as more information was required regarding the children's best interests, including a pending decision on the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.
The court declined to hear a father's motion for holiday access during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding it lacked urgency and warning parents against uncooperative behavior.
The Applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding Easter weekend timesharing for the parties' 11-year-old daughter, and for future holiday plans.
The Respondent mother opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, especially given the COVID-19 crisis.
The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the history of high-conflict litigation between the parties and found the father's motion for Easter access was not urgent and would not be heard.
The balance of the motion was adjourned.
The court provided strong recommendations for parents to be cooperative and child-focused during the pandemic, warning against using the crisis to gain advantage.
