3 total
Successful father awarded $4,000 in costs for interim parenting motion, payable in $40 monthly installments.
Following a successful motion for an interim parenting schedule, the applicant father sought partial indemnity costs of $7,771.87.
The respondent mother argued for a significant reduction or no costs due to her limited financial means.
The court considered the father's unaccepted offer to settle, the mother's financial situation, and the principles of fair and reasonable costs.
The mother was ordered to pay costs of $4,000, payable in monthly installments of $40.
The court granted the father interim weekend overnight parenting time, rejecting the mother's unsubstantiated COVID-19 health concerns.
The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting schedule for his 18-month-old daughter, Aria, after the respondent mother unilaterally moved to Toronto and restricted his parenting time.
The mother raised concerns regarding the father's parenting abilities, the suitability of his family home for overnight visits, and potential COVID-19 health risks due to her and the maternal grandmother's alleged underlying conditions.
The court rejected all the mother's concerns, finding no evidence to support claims of inadequate parenting or a "toxic" home environment, and that the mother failed to substantiate her or the grandmother's health vulnerabilities.
The court emphasized the importance of meaningful contact with both parents during the pandemic.
An interim order was granted establishing a transitional and then regular weekend overnight parenting schedule for the father, with him bearing transportation costs.
The existing child support amount was maintained, and strict COVID-19 safety protocols were mandated.
Appeal dismissed; formal agreement for granny suite construction funds upheld as a valid loan and licence.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding that a $165,000 advance from his former parents-in-law to construct a 'granny suite' on the matrimonial property was a loan secured by a valid licence agreement and demand mortgage, rather than a gift or a lease.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the formal, lawyer-drafted agreement clearly indicated a loan and a licence, and that there was no basis in the agreement to discount the principal amount based on the duration of occupancy.