Appeared as counsel in 33 cases (2007–2020)
10 total
Court imputes both employment and dividend income to voluntarily unemployed parent for shared custody child support.
The applicant sought to change a separation agreement regarding child support and special expenses for their child in a shared parenting arrangement.
The respondent had voluntarily left his employment and was earning dividend income from investments, which he failed to properly disclose.
The court imputed both employment income and grossed-up dividend income to the respondent, and imputed rental income to the applicant.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the set-off child support amount of $541 per month and retroactive arrears, with special expenses to be shared equally.
The court dismissed a father's motion for interim relocation of his children due to an insufficient plan of care.
The Applicant sought an interim order to relocate with the three children of the marriage from Dutton/Wallacetown to Tilbury, Ontario, approximately 141 km away.
The Respondent opposed the move, arguing it should be determined at trial.
The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the proposed relocation was not in the children's best interests at this interim stage.
The Applicant's plan of care lacked crucial details regarding housing, employment, and the support network for the children, raising concerns about their security and well-being.
The court also found no compelling reason to permit the interim move, noting that the stated desire for an "upgraded lifestyle" and access to activities was not unique to Tilbury and did not outweigh the significant impact on the children's relationship and parenting time with the Respondent.
The court emphasized that the best interests of the children, not the parents' interests, were paramount, and that the issues presented were genuine issues for trial requiring more detailed evidence.
High-conflict shared custody varied to sole decision-making for mother; father's non-recurring capital gains excluded.
The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2014 consent order for shared custody, seeking sole decision-making and changes to parenting time, as well as imputing income to the respondent mother and excluding his 2016 capital gains from child support calculations.
The court found a material change in circumstances due to the complete failure of the shared parenting regime and high conflict between the parties.
The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility for major healthcare, education, and extracurricular decisions to the respondent mother, subject to consultation.
The existing week-about parenting schedule was maintained.
The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding her educational upgrading reasonable, but allowed the applicant to exclude a non-recurring 2016 capital gain from his income for support purposes.
Permission granted to file motion for leave to appeal despite prior order restricting further motions.
The self-represented applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to appeal a prior order that restricted further motions without permission.
The court clarified that the prior order was not intended to apply to motions for leave to appeal or stay the order itself.
The court granted permission for the motion, if required, and directed the applicant to serve and file the motion in the regular course pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary judgment granted striking claims against former opposing counsel as barred by res judicata.
The moving party, a lawyer who formerly represented the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike the co-respondents' amended answers against him.
The co-respondents had previously brought a civil action against the lawyer regarding the non-disbursement of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property, which was dismissed on the basis that the lawyer owed them no duty of care.
The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the claims in the amended answers were identical to those dismissed in the civil action and were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.
Court ordered partial release of matrimonial home sale proceeds to husband and preserved remainder for equalization.
The respondent husband brought a motion for the release of his half of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, which were held in trust.
The applicant wife brought a cross-motion seeking a preservation order to keep the funds in trust to secure her anticipated equalization payment, arguing she should not be forced to accept a transfer from the husband's pension.
The court balanced the interests of both parties, noting the husband's need for liquid assets and the wife's right to security for her equalization claim.
The court ordered a partial release of $150,000 to the husband, immediate payment of support arrears and costs to the wife, and directed that the remaining funds continue to be held in trust pending trial.
The court dismissed a father's urgent motion to set aside final minutes of settlement following a police incident at the mother's home.
The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking production of police reports, setting aside final Minutes of Settlement, primary residence of the children, and restricting the respondent's parenting time.
The motion was prompted by a recent incident at the respondent's home involving her former partner.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the Minutes of Settlement to be a binding contract, and that the applicant was aware of the respondent's past concerning behaviors when the agreement was made.
The court found no present danger to the children and declined to exercise *parens patriae* jurisdiction, advising the applicant to pursue a motion to change if a material change in circumstances occurs after the settlement is incorporated into a final order.
Summary judgment granted dismissing a motion to change a parenting order due to lack of material change.
The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's motion to change a final consent parenting order.
The mother sought joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting time, arguing her mental health had improved.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother failed to provide admissible evidence of a material change in circumstances since the original order.
The summary judgment motion was granted, the motion to change was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to seek leave before commencing any further motions to change.
Court orders divided decision-making for high-conflict parents and declines to order child support.
The applicant father and respondent mother, who separated in 2014, both sought sole decision-making responsibility for their two children.
The parties had a history of high conflict and inability to co-parent effectively, despite a 2016 separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.
The court found that neither sole nor joint decision-making was appropriate, instead ordering divided decision-making: the father was granted final authority over education, dental, and extra-curricular activities, while the mother was granted final authority over medical decisions and school supports.
The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained with minor modifications.
The court also ordered that no child support be payable by either party under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, and dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support.
Mother granted authority to register child at her preferred school due to her flexible work schedule.
The applicant mother brought a motion to register the parties' child for Junior Kindergarten at Masonville Public School, while the respondent father sought to have the child attend Cedar Hollow Public School.
The court found that both schools were appropriate and both parents valued education.
However, the court determined that the applicant's flexible work schedule and proximity to the school made her better positioned to support the child's daily educational needs and provide consistency.
The motion was granted, allowing the applicant to register the child at Masonville Public School.
