Sukhwinder Singh Samra

The applicant moved for financial disclosure from her former spouse in the context of a motion to change child support.

The court found that the motion was improperly briefed by both parties, with voluminous and confusing materials filed at the last minute.

Despite the procedural deficiencies, the court ruled on the outstanding undertakings and refusals from the respondent's questioning, ordering him to provide the requested financial information.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's failure to provide a timely costs outline and the disproportionate nature of the costs claimed.

The applicant husband brought a motion for the return of the parties' child from British Columbia to Ontario, arguing that Ontario was the child's habitual residence.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion to stay the proceedings or transfer them to British Columbia, where she had commenced a family law proceeding under provincial legislation.

The court found that the husband's application under the Divorce Act took precedence and that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, as the wife had relocated without the husband's consent.

The court ordered the wife to return the child to Ontario within 30 days.

The Applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of a jointly owned property and an amendment to her application, citing dire financial circumstances due to mortgage arrears and lack of income.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, the application was procedurally improper given a prior divorce, and that it constituted a malicious collateral attack.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the Thomas v. Wohleber test, noting the immediate risk of losing equity.

It permitted the amendment and ordered the sale of the property, rejecting the Respondent's procedural objections and finding no malicious conduct.

The Applicant was granted sole authority for the sale above a specified price, with the Respondent given a limited opportunity to purchase the property first.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order to expand his access to his two-year-old child and remove the condition of supervision.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report recommending that access remain supervised.

The court considered the OCL report and supervised access notes, finding that while there was a material change in circumstances due to the father's consistent access, transitioning to unsupervised access was not in the child's best interests at this time due to ongoing concerns about the father's behaviour during visits.

The motion was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that both parties were good parents but were unable to communicate or make joint decisions.

To ensure both parents remained fully involved in the child's life, the court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father primary responsibility for educational decisions and the mother primary responsibility for all other decisions.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother, and an access schedule was established for the father.