Véronique Fournier

The respondent brought a motion to change a 1992 child support order, seeking to rescind or reduce significant accrued interest on arrears.

The applicant opposed, arguing for full interest and a pro-rata application of payments.

The court, applying the principles from Colucci v. Colucci, found that while the respondent had contributed to the accumulation of arrears, strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to his limited financial means and health issues.

The court reduced the outstanding interest debt from over $10,000 to $2,229 and set monthly payments at $75, declining the applicant's request for a pro-rata payment calculation as it was contrary to O. Reg. 167/97.

The Mother sought to relocate with the children from Ontario to Nova Scotia, citing health and financial reasons.

The Father opposed the relocation, arguing it was not in the children's best interests due to the negative impact on their relationship and stability.

The court considered factors under the Divorce Act, including the children's needs, relationships with parents and extended family, and the parents' willingness to cooperate.

The court denied the Mother's request to relocate, finding that it would destabilize the children and negatively impact their strong bond with the Father.

Decision-making responsibility was shared, with the Mother responsible for medical care and religion, and the Father for education.

The existing equal shared parenting time schedule was maintained.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a four-year-old child.

The society sought to have the child remain in the mother's care, subject to strict supervision by the maternal grandfather, due to allegations of physical abuse involving the mother's partner and another child.

The mother opposed the supervision order, while the father sought temporary custody.

The court found credible evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if left unsupervised with the mother or her partner.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering that the child remain with the mother under the grandfather's supervision, with the father having access every second weekend.

The respondent sought a modification of the parental schedule to achieve 50/50 custody and an adjustment to child support.

The applicant opposed the change to the parental schedule and also sought an adjustment to child support, the cancellation of drug screening tests, and an order allowing her to manage inheritance funds without the respondent's participation.

The court denied the respondent's request for a 50/50 parental schedule, citing allegations of domestic violence and the child's difficulty adjusting to schedule changes.

Child support was adjusted downwards based on the respondent's reduced income.

The frequency of drug tests was reduced from twice weekly to once monthly, acknowledging negative results but also a history of drug use.

The issue of managing inheritance funds was reserved for trial.

The foster parents of twin girls brought a motion to be added as parties to the child protection proceeding in order to present an adoption plan.

The biological father, who had been permitted to participate despite delays, was currently undergoing a gradual reintegration plan with the children.

The court dismissed the foster parents' motion, finding that adding them as parties was unnecessary at this stage and would inappropriately create a debate between the foster parents and the biological father while he was being given the opportunity to demonstrate his capacity to care for the children.