Siobhan Ann Hanley

Following an interim order requiring the applicant mother to return the children to Guelph after a unilateral move to Ottawa, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the respondent father was the successful party, as the mother's move was unreasonable and she was ordered to return the children.

Applying the principles from Mattina v. Mattina and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $15,000.

The applicant sought interim custody of the children and permission to relocate their ordinary residence from Guelph to Ottawa.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought joint custody with primary residence in Guelph.

The court granted interim primary residence to the applicant but denied the relocation, finding it not in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the applicant's "self-help" move to Ottawa without notice and the negative impact on the children's relationship with the respondent.

The order stipulated that if the applicant failed to return to Guelph, the children's primary residence would shift to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in a farm property based on an alleged 1990 oral agreement.

The action was commenced in 2007, but the plaintiff took no steps to advance the litigation after discoveries in 2009.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiff's uncorroborated claims of illness.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, as one defendant had died and the other had developed dementia, making a fair trial impossible.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant judges' association sought judicial review of the Ontario government's decision to reject the pension recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Remuneration Commission.

The government had retained independent actuaries to cost the recommendations before rejecting them.

The Divisional Court held that the actuarial affidavits were admissible, as the government was entitled to seek expert advice to justify its decision.

The court found that the government was not required to return to the Commission before making its decision, and that its rejection of the recommendations met the constitutional standard of simple rationality.

The applicants sought a declaration that A & P was a successor employer to New Dominion Stores Inc. following a corporate reorganization, and that an intermingling of employees had occurred, justifying the termination of Local 206's bargaining rights or a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred and A & P was bound by the collective agreement with Local 206.

However, the Board found no intermingling of employees and declined to order a representation vote.

To resolve the conflict between the provincial agreement and Local 206's agreement, the Board amended both agreements to confine Local 206's rights to the specific Chatham store.