Taryn Simionati

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' 10-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19.

The respondent father opposed the vaccination, citing misinformation and a desire to wait for further studies.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority for the vaccine and prohibited the father from discussing vaccine misinformation with the child.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for several motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by seeking to re-litigate a consent order shortly after it was made.

The court found the respondent's conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith, which requires an intention to inflict harm or deceive.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle lacked a true element of compromise.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,460.

The applicant mother brought a motion for production of financial records from family corporations controlled by the respondent father's mother, a non-party, to determine the father's income for support purposes.

The father brought a cross-motion to reduce interim child and spousal support, claiming a reduction in income due to health issues.

The court ordered the non-party to produce the requested corporate records, finding them relevant and necessary for the mother's expert to complete an income analysis.

The father's cross-motion to vary support was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to renew after the corporate records are fully produced.

The applicant mother sought an order for primary residence, final decision-making authority, and permission to relocate with the parties' 10-year-old daughter from Aberfoyle to Ajax to live with her new partner.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought an equal shared parenting arrangement and joint custody.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move would be highly disruptive to the child and would sever her ties to her community, school, extended family, and father.

The court ordered joint custody and an equal week-about shared parenting schedule, finding that both parents were capable and loving, and that maximum contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the shared parenting arrangement.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order requiring the child to attend Springfield Preparatory and Nursery School commencing September 2012.

The child, age 10, had been diagnosed with a mild learning disability and mild ADHD and was struggling academically in a French immersion program at his current public school despite receiving an Individual Education Plan and private tutoring.

The father opposed the motion, proposing an alternative public school with specialized resources.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the private school with smaller class sizes and a supportive teaching approach would better meet the child's educational and emotional needs, particularly given the public school system's historical inability to address the child's needs.