Yaroslav O. Diduch

The applicant moved to set aside a final order that terminated her spousal support, claiming she had no notice of the respondent's motion to change.

The court found that the respondent had obtained an order for substituted service and had served the applicant via her daughter and Facebook Messenger.

The court concluded that the applicant was either ignoring the proceedings or willfully blind to them.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court held that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for her default and did not establish an arguable case on the merits, as she had significant assets and the support had been paid for 19 years.

The motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time pending a Family and Children's Services (FACS) investigation into allegations that the father's step-son inappropriately touched the parties' child.

The court noted that both parents had inappropriately obtained taped statements from the child, resulting in contradictory accounts.

The court found the allegations serious but concluded it was not necessary to deny the father contact with the children.

The court ordered the resumption of the existing parenting schedule with conditions, including that the child not share a bedroom and that the parties engage in counselling.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior custody and access order, seeking sole custody of the child, reduced access for the respondent, changes to transportation arrangements, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion, sought custody himself, and brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant breached the earlier order by restricting access.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant remaining in St. Catharines after completing her education, contrary to the expectations underlying the original order.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained joint custody but modified the respondent’s parenting time to every third weekend with expanded summer access.

The request for s. 7 contributions and the respondent’s contempt motion were both dismissed.