Tami L. Waters

This trial involved an unmarried couple's claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust regarding two properties (Stone Street and Greenlees Drive) and Section 7 child expenses.

The court found both parties' financial evidence unreliable.

The father was awarded $8,000 plus interest for his contribution to the mother's Stone Street property, and the mother was awarded $3,000 plus interest for her out-of-pocket expenses on the father's Greenlees Drive property.

The mother's claim for Section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of substantiation and consent.

Costs for parenting issues and the trial were reserved for separate submissions.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a previous parenting order, seeking primary residence and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's illicit drug use, undisclosed Children's Aid Society involvement, and failure to communicate or comply with the right of first refusal.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court issued a temporary order granting primary residence and final decision-making authority to the father, while ordering supervised parenting time for the mother pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The moving party father brought a motion to appoint an expert to conduct an assessment of the parties' 9-year-old child regarding potential gender dysphoria and the use of male pronouns.

The responding party mother brought a cross-motion to appoint a different expert for a narrower assessment regarding gender pronouns.

The court reviewed the qualifications, availability, and processes of the proposed assessors.

The court appointed the father's proposed expert, noting his extensive experience, ability to provide an expeditious report, and the urgent need to proceed given the delay since the assessment was originally ordered on consent.

The Applicant mother brought a motion seeking interim decision-making responsibility for the children, particularly for medical/healthcare decisions, the use of a parenting application for communication, compliance with COVID-19 public health recommendations by the Respondent father, and a prohibition on the Respondent posting children on social media in relation to the pandemic or litigation.

The court granted the Applicant final decision-making authority for medical and healthcare issues (including vaccination), ordered the use of a parenting communication application, mandated the Respondent's compliance with public health recommendations, and prohibited social media posts of the children related to COVID-19 or the family law litigation, with non-compliance leading to immediate cessation of parenting time.

The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained.

The Applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of their one-year-old daughter to Trenton, Ontario, and primary residence or a shared parenting arrangement.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence in Vankleek Hill, Ontario, following her unilateral relocation.

The court, applying the Children's Law Reform Act and principles of interim mobility, found the mother's relocation self-serving and not in the child's best interests, noting her non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.

The court ordered the child's residency to be established within 50 km of Trenton, Ontario, and implemented an interim 2/2/3 parenting schedule.