Timothy Paul Gronfors

The applicant sought an order lifting the automatic stay of proceedings imposed by the respondent's bankruptcy, along with orders to add the bankruptcy trustee as a co-respondent, amend the application, try certain matters, and compel disclosure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was brought in the wrong forum and should be brought in bankruptcy court.

The court found that the motion to lift the stay must be brought in bankruptcy court, not family court, as property claims are stayed by bankruptcy and must be addressed where the stay was imposed.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for disclosure as it relates to both property and support claims, with support claims not being stayed by bankruptcy.

The court considered three motions under the Family Law Rules: one by the applicant to note the respondent in default for failing to respond to a motion to change, and two by the respondent that did not comply with the Rules.

The court granted the respondent a brief extension to comply and struck most of her non-compliant materials.

The decision discusses the respondent's repeated non-compliance, her excuses, and the importance of following procedural rules, especially in family law matters involving children.

Appeal from a Superior Court order on motions to change custody, residency, and child support.

The father appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his motion to change the child's primary residence from the mother's home in Owen Sound to his apartment in Toronto, and to grant him final decision-making authority.

The father also challenged the retroactive child support award dating to January 2012.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no material change in circumstances regarding custody and residency, but allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, varying the retroactive date to June 3, 2014 (the date of the motion to change) and correcting the set-off calculation to reflect only 50% of the outstanding costs award.