V. Jennifer Mackinnon

The respondent father sought increased parenting time and a change to the children's exchange location, while the applicant mother opposed these changes and sought financial orders.

The court addressed allegations of sexual interference against the father, which were unverified by police and CAS, and noted the mother's non-compliance with a prior order regarding questioning the children.

The father's request for increased daytime access was granted, and the exchange location was changed for safety.

Other parenting requests were adjourned pending a full assessment.

On financial matters, the mother's claim for August 2019 child support was deferred due to incomplete disclosure.

The father was ordered to contribute to certain Section 7 expenses (camping, day camps, swimming lessons, strike day daycare) but not others (babysitting, Guides, hot lunch differential).

The applicant sought costs for successful urgency and jurisdictional determinations, and for a partially successful motion to stay a trial judgment pending appeal.

The respondent sought costs for her success on the stay motion.

The court found mixed success, with the applicant prevailing on urgency and jurisdiction, and the respondent on the joint decision-making aspect of the stay.

Neither party fully succeeded on parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant $2,750 and the respondent $1,250, resulting in a net payment of $1,500 to the applicant, deferred until the appeal's disposition.

The court declined to award costs for preparing costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' bills and the applicant's improper disclosure of an offer to settle.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $8,841.12 for a case conference and a motion concerning parenting issues, alleging unreasonable conduct by the respondent and having bested her own offer to settle.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs or a lesser amount.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality from *Beaver v. Hill* and *Mattina v. Mattina*, found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct but determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for having bested her offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $4,625, inclusive of the case conference and motion, payable within 30 days.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to resume access to his three children and obtain make-up access for missed visits following a Children's Aid Society (CAS) and police investigation that concluded without verified allegations.

The applicant mother had partially reinstated access but with modifications.

The court ordered the resumption of access largely consistent with a prior mediated agreement, with specific amendments regarding child exchange locations and parental conduct.

The father's request for extensive make-up access was partially granted, with the court ordering eight additional Saturday visits over a period, balancing the children's best interests and avoiding punitive measures against the mother.

The court also ordered an update from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and required the father to provide information on COVID-19 precautions.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' nine-year-old daughter to Ottawa to resume in-person access.

The mother had previously relocated the child to Tiny Township without consent and, in breach of a prior court order, failed to return the child, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification.

The court found the mother in breach of the prior order and rejected her attempt to use the public health emergency as an excuse to unilaterally relocate.

The motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa with police enforcement.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 crisis to reduce the respondent father's parenting time, seeking to eliminate overnight visits due to alleged inappropriate sexual content disclosures by their two young daughters (aged four and six).

The father denied the allegations, suggesting the mother was coaching the children.

The court found the children's statements, particularly those made to the social worker, were not sufficiently reliable to establish the father's culpability, noting potential parental influence and shortcomings in the Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation.

The motion to reduce the father's access was dismissed.

The court issued orders to mitigate harm, prohibiting parents from discussing sexual content statements with the children and requiring the mother to report any future disclosures directly to CAS and the physician without further questioning the child.

The applicant sought costs for successfully opposing the respondent's request to have his motion to change child support and other relief heard urgently during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court denied the urgency request due to evidentiary deficiencies in the respondent's materials.

While the applicant was entitled to costs, the court found the time spent preparing the response excessive for an urgency determination, reducing the requested amount from $2,938.49 to $650.

The respondent was granted 30 days to rectify his materials and renew his urgency request, with specific payment terms for costs depending on his actions.

The applicant husband sought a determination of urgency for his proposed motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent wife, alleging chronic alcoholism and verbal abuse.

The respondent opposed the urgency but indicated a desire to seek urgent spousal support if the applicant's motion proceeded.

The court found the applicant's motion urgent based on evidence including an abusive recording and a police report, noting high conflict in the home.

The court urged the parties to pursue out-of-court settlement and suggested a private voice of the child report.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to reduce the respondent father's access to their children, specifically to eliminate overnight access, based on disclosures from their two young daughters (ages 4 and 6) regarding the father's alleged sexualized comments.

The father denied the allegations, noting a prior CAS investigation found them unverified.

The court determined the matter was urgent, affecting the children's safety, and granted leave for the motion to proceed despite the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding COVID-19.

The court also ordered the mother to forthwith deliver a recording of one child's statement to the father and made arrangements for cross-examinations to proceed virtually.

The respondent sought leave to bring an urgent motion to change a prior order regarding access, a restraining order, and child support, citing the COVID-19 crisis.

The court denied the request, finding that a motion to change was not applicable to temporary orders for access and the restraining order, and that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidentiary foundation for an urgent reduction in child support, particularly regarding his income and job search efforts.

The applicant sought leave to proceed to an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and related relief, citing medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis and the respondent's failure to adhere to "stay at home" recommendations.

The court granted leave, finding that the applicant's proposed motion met the Chief Justice's criteria for urgency due to her serious medical conditions, including systemic lupus, asthma, and supraventricular tachycardia.

The ruling emphasized that the purpose of the leave motion was to assess urgency, not to determine the merits of the underlying dispute.

This endorsement addresses disputed issues of admissibility of evidence in advance of a temporary motion concerning parenting time.

The court considered surreptitiously obtained recordings made by the father, as well as police occurrence reports and Children's Aid Society (CAS) file notes.

Applying the general exclusionary discretion for surreptitious evidence in family law, the court found that the father's recordings had low probative value and were outweighed by significant systemic and case-specific prejudice, leading to their exclusion.

The court also clarified the admissibility of business records under the Evidence Act, ruling that while the records themselves might be admissible, embedded hearsay from third parties not under a business duty to report, or opinions, were not.

Consequently, most of the father's tendered evidence was deemed inadmissible.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion where there was divided success.

The party seeking costs was successful in obtaining an order to sell the matrimonial home and opposing temporary spousal support, while the party opposing costs succeeded in obtaining child support and a disclosure order.

The court found the party seeking costs was more successful and awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $1,650, payable from the opposing party's portion of the proceeds of sale of the home.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion in a family law proceeding where both parties achieved divided success.

The applicant sought an order that no costs be awarded, while the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,631.37.

The court found that both parties had problematic settlement offers and engaged in some unreasonable conduct, including the respondent's unilateral withdrawal of funds from a joint line of credit and the applicant's pursuit of final relief on a temporary motion.

Consequently, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify a previous order regarding costs in two related family law matters.

The judge confirmed that written submissions were received and considered for a costs award in the first matter.

However, no submissions were provided in the second matter, only draft orders.

The court granted leave for written submissions to be filed in the second matter to determine if a costs award should be attached to the settlement.

The moving party brought a motion for temporary access to his son, which was dismissed because he failed to commence a Motion to Change a final order.

The parties disagreed on whether the resulting order was final or interlocutory for the purposes of appeal.

The court held that the order was final because it finally disposed of the matter before the court, as the motion was brought in the absence of any originating process.

Costs of $150 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues following their separation.

The court ordered a Voice of the Child report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views on residential schedules.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, finding her career path as a writer reasonable and not constituting intentional underemployment.

The mother was awarded interim spousal support and alternate weekend overnight access, but was ordered to repay $120,000 she had unilaterally withdrawn from a joint line of credit.

The respondent moved for an order to sell the jointly owned matrimonial home before trial, which the applicant opposed.

The applicant also sought temporary spousal support and retroactive child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the applicant could not afford the carrying costs and the equity would not justify transferring the respondent's interest to her.

The court dismissed the claim for temporary spousal support as the respondent lacked the ability to pay, but ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support for the period the child lived with the applicant before completing high school.