Sheena Naidoo

The responding party mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking the return of the parties' child, a police enforcement order, and an order preventing the moving party father from taking the child to his cottage.

The dispute arose over the parenting schedule during school closures.

The triage judge found the matter was not urgent because it had become moot; the father agreed in his responding materials to return the child and revert to the existing court-ordered schedule.

The court declined to award costs to the father, noting he only disclosed his cottage address after the motion was brought and the motion was necessary to secure his compliance with the existing order.

The parties separated in May 2018 and have one child together, born prematurely with significant medical needs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court found that both parents were fit and capable, and that the mother had unreasonably denied the father access post-separation.

Applying the maximum contact principle and the best interests of the child factors, the court ordered joint custody and an equal shared parenting schedule.

The applicant father brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent mother, alleging six breaches of a final parenting order.

The court found the mother in contempt for failing to enroll the child in an extracurricular activity and for failing to cooperate in obtaining a passport for the child.

The other alleged breaches were dismissed due to ambiguity in the order or the court exercising its discretion.

The mother was ordered to pay a $57 fine for the passport application fee and to enroll the child in specific extracurricular programs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to repay $9,534.91 to the respondent, disputing $4,501.22 of that amount.

The appellant argued the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in finding that three specific payments were loans and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including bank records and receipts, and that the reasons provided were sufficient to explain why the respondent's evidence was preferred.