Thomas M. MacKay

This case involves competing parenting motions concerning the relocation of the parties' two-year-old child with special needs.

The respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Essex County to Burlington.

The applicant father sought the child's return, while the respondent mother sought ex post facto court authorization for the relocation.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework under the Divorce Act, found the mother to be the primary caregiver and her reasons for relocation, including lack of support in Essex County and better access to special needs services in Burlington, to be valid and reasonable.

The court authorized the relocation and maintained the father's alternate weekend parenting time, with exchanges at a neutral halfway point.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for various relief, including security for costs and interim expenses.

The applicant sought over $9,000 in costs, arguing success on financial disclosure, while the respondent sought $5,000, citing overall success and the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the respondent to be the more successful party on the motion.

While the applicant's initial request for disclosure was reasonable, continuing to pursue the motion after disclosure was provided and the disorganized presentation of her case led to wasted court time.

Despite the respondent's significant child support arrears, he provided timely disclosure.

Balancing the reasonable and unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $1,000 in costs for wasted court appearances, with each party bearing the remainder of their own costs.

The applicant, Katarzyna Krzewina, brought a motion seeking security for costs and advance payment of interim expenses from the respondent, Chad Beaumont, in the context of his motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's financial disclosure was entangled, his claim was not "so devoid of merit" as to be a nuisance or waste of time.

The court also dismissed the motion for advance payment of expenses, as the applicant failed to provide evidence on the necessity or reasonableness of the fees and disbursements, or that she was unable to fund the litigation without the order.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision finding that the home he and his wife lived in during their marriage was not a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act.

The home was owned by a family trust settled by the wife's mother, in which the wife had a contingent beneficial interest and acted as a co-trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wife's contingent beneficial interest in the trust as a whole did not give her a specific property interest in the home itself.

Furthermore, her role as a trustee could not be conflated with her beneficial interest to create a property interest under section 18(1) of the Act.