Tara Ann Lattanzio

The respondent brought an urgent motion alleging the applicant overheld their child, denied parenting time, and kept the child out of daycare, further alleging the applicant is a drug dealer living in a hotel with the child.

The court found the matter urgent for triage purposes due to the potentially dangerous situation.

Despite severe judicial resource limitations in the Central South Region, the court scheduled an urgent case conference and a subsequent motion hearing, emphasizing the need for immediate judicial intervention to protect the child's health and safety.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody, termination of access, and child support.

The applicant father, who had a history of family violence and criminal charges, failed to participate in the motion despite multiple opportunities.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The mother was awarded sole custody with no access to the father, and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income, along with costs.

The applicant, Daniel L. Thornhill, brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking primary residence of the children and specific access arrangements.

He raised concerns about the respondent, Rena Schmidt, allowing a new partner and his son to move into her home without providing information on public health precautions, particularly given one child's pre-existing health vulnerabilities.

The court found the motion urgent due to these specific concerns, but did not grant the substantive relief immediately.

Instead, it directed the parties to a settlement conference, followed by a motion hearing if no agreement is reached on interim parenting arrangements.

The respondent father, Shefik Jakupi, sought leave to appeal an interim order for child support and costs issued by Justice Campbell.

The original order required the father to pay interim child support of $1,321 per month for the daughter, retroactive to October 1, 2016, based on an imputed income of $158,000, and costs of $2,800.

The court dismissed the father's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the strict two-part test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not met.

The court concluded that it was not desirable to grant leave and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of such importance that leave should be granted, as the underlying order was fact-specific and involved the exercise of judicial discretion.

Following a family law motion determining a child's primary residence and access schedule, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an offer to settle that mirrored the outcome of the motion, invoking Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The opposing party argued the offer was non‑compliant, that costs should be denied due to alleged misconduct, and that financial hardship justified either no costs or a nominal award.

The court held the offer complied with Rule 18(14) and supported full recovery costs from the date of the offer, but exercised discretion to reduce the amount due to the respondent’s limited financial means.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order granting interim custody of the parties' seven-year-old child to the applicant mother, and sought to have the child placed in his full-time care in Pontypool.

The father had unilaterally removed the child from his school in Cambridge and enrolled him in a school near Pontypool.

The court found no material non-disclosure by the mother on the ex parte motion.

Applying the principles for interim mobility, the court held there was no compelling reason to upset the status quo and relocate the child from his ordinary residence in Cambridge.

The father's motion was dismissed, and he was granted alternate weekend and mid-week access.