Wiriranai Kapurura

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to relocate with the parties' three children to Alberta or, alternatively, outside the Greater Toronto Area, citing rising living costs and alleged harassment by the father.

The respondent father opposed the motion, raising concerns about the relocation plan's specifics and the mother's non-compliance with the existing parenting order.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests or compelling reasons for temporary relocation.

The court emphasized the mother's non-compliance with the current parenting order, the vagueness of her relocation plan, the lack of the children's views (especially the eldest child's school choice), and the potential negative impact on the father's parenting time.

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The applicant mother sought over $30,000 in trial costs and additional costs for an urgent motion.

The respondent father sought dismissal of the mother's costs and his own costs for the urgent motion.

The court found the mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome on several key issues (decision-making, parenting time, child support, spousal support, government documents), presumptively entitling her to full recovery of costs on those issues under Rule 18(14).

However, the court exercised its discretion to deny costs on the relocation issue due to the mother's unreasonable self-help tactics and also considered the time spent on her handwriting expert whose report was not admitted.

The father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and respond to offers, was also noted.

Considering all factors, including the father's modest means, the court fixed the mother's trial costs at $18,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable monthly.

Costs for the urgent motion were denied to both parties, as the motion, while not urgent, led to beneficial temporary parenting orders.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to transfer the 8-year-old child from her current English school to a French Immersion program for Grade 4.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the child had learning challenges and should remain in the Core French program.

The court excluded the mother's expert evidence due to bias and lack of independence.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court found that the child's academic struggles and the parents' poor communication made a transfer to French Immersion contrary to her best interests.

The motion for school transfer was dismissed, but temporary orders were made to ensure the child's continued exposure to French through summer camps and extra-curricular activities.

Following a five-day trial regarding parenting and support arrangements, both parties sought costs.

The applicant mother sought $46,945.47, while the self-represented respondent father sought $42,724.23 and reimbursement for a paternity test.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues of decision-making, primary residence, and child support.

The court noted the father's unreasonable conduct, including his failure to provide financial disclosure and his intentional under-employment.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $26,964.00 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $200.00, with 35% of the award enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The parties, who had a brief relationship and separated before their child's birth, engaged in a high-conflict trial over parenting and child support for their two-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and imputed income for child support, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and a name change for the child.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding the father's communication abusive and controlling.

The father was granted alternate weekend parenting time.

The court imputed the father's income at $39,149 due to intentional under-employment and failure to provide financial disclosure, ordering retroactive child support and proportional contribution to daycare expenses.

The mother's requests for a police enforcement clause and a restriction on future motions were dismissed, as was the father's request to change the child's name, which the court lacked jurisdiction to grant.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to suspend the mother's in-person access visits with the child, C.B., citing concerns about the mother's conduct during visits, including unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations against the father and coaching the child.

The father supported the motion, while the mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed it.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test for varying an access order, requiring a change in circumstances that renders the existing order no longer in the child's best interests and that the new order sought is in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the Society's request to suspend in-person access, finding it too drastic and contrary to the child's expressed wishes and special needs.

Instead, the court varied the access order by imposing conditions on the mother's conduct during visits, such as prohibiting discussion of adult or court-related matters and recording the child.

The applicant, the mother of a deceased young person, applied for access to police records relating to her son under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The records were sought for use in a civil lawsuit against the police regarding the circumstances of the young person's death following a police pursuit.

The court found that the materials constituted records under the YCJA, waived the notice requirement because the young person was deceased, and granted access, finding the applicant had a valid and substantial interest and access was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Strict conditions were imposed on the use and disclosure of the records.

The applicant society brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a declaration that the respondent mother is a special party and requesting the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her legal representative.

The mother, who has indigenous heritage, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not taking her medication, and had missed recent court appearances.

The court found compelling evidence that the mother was mentally incapable of understanding or appreciating the risks and consequences of her decisions regarding the litigation.

As no family member was willing to act as her representative, the court granted the motion and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee.