Zahra Taseer

The respondent father was successful on a motion to suspend the maternal grandparents' visits with his medically fragile child and sought costs of $4,339 on a partial indemnity basis.

The maternal grandparents did not file costs submissions.

The court found the father acted reasonably and the motion was necessary due to the grandparents' egregious behaviour.

The court awarded the father his requested costs of $4,339, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, an advance on equalization, and reinstatement of health benefits following a short marriage.

The applicant was unable to work due to a severe injury, while the respondent claimed he had been laid off from his parents' business shortly after the motion was commenced.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding him intentionally unemployed, and awarded the applicant interim spousal support of $3,445 per month based on the basic needs/hardship exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also ordered the reinstatement of health benefits but dismissed the request for an advance on equalization due to genuine issues requiring a trial.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion heard on August 28, 2020, in which the father sought decision-making authority over vaccination of the parties' child, cessation of day care attendance, a change from private to public school, and a modified parenting schedule.

The parties settled the school issue and certain other matters.

The father succeeded on the vaccination issue but failed on the day care issue.

The court found divided but unequal victory, with the father achieving greater success on the more complex and time-consuming vaccine issue.

The court awarded costs to the father in the reduced amount of $3,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the divided victory and applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

The respondent mother filed a 14B Motion seeking a temporary stay of the court's September 28, 2020 order granting the applicant father decision-making authority over the child's vaccination decisions.

The motion was dismissed on three grounds: (1) the motion was opposed and not appropriate for 14B procedure; (2) there was no urgency or pressing need, as the mother delayed filing the appeal and did not pursue an earlier hearing date in the Superior Court; and (3) insufficient evidence was provided to satisfy the stay test.

The court found that the mother should pursue her stay motion in the Superior Court as scheduled for November 24, 2020.

A father brought a motion seeking decision-making authority over his almost 10-year-old son's vaccinations, requesting the child not return to private school and day care, and seeking an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The mother opposed all three requests.

The court granted the father decision-making authority over the child's publicly funded vaccinations, finding it in the child's best interests based on the child's good health, expert medical evidence, and the mother's failure to provide any credible medical evidence supporting her position.

The court dismissed the father's requests regarding day care and deferred the parenting schedule issue to trial.

The court applied a best interests test rather than requiring the father to demonstrate material change in circumstances or exigent circumstances.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding an interim parenting schedule for their two-year-old daughter, MV, due to police involvement in exchanges and mutual withholding of access.

The court dismissed non-urgent issues and focused on the interim parenting plan.

The court found no consistent status quo parenting arrangement and rejected the applicant's claims of the respondent's threatening behavior and safety concerns.

The court criticized both parties for inappropriate withholding of the child, particularly the applicant for prolonged denial of access.

Applying the best interests of the child and the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a graduated increase in the respondent's parenting time, including overnights, equal sharing of exchanges, mutual right of first refusal, and specific make-up time for the respondent.

The applicant's request for a police enforcement order was denied.

The respondent mother brought a temporary motion seeking child and spousal support from the applicant father.

The parties had cohabited since 2001 and had one child born in 2013.

Following separation, the mother lost her full-time employment and was forced to leave the family residence, losing the benefit of a rent-free apartment and superintendent salary.

The court found the mother established entitlement to temporary spousal support based on economic disadvantage and need.

The father's income was imputed at $140,429 based on his employment income, superintendent salary, and the grossed-up value of his rent-free apartment.

The mother's income was imputed at $55,000.

The court ordered child support, spousal support, and contribution to childcare expenses, and required payment of outstanding costs from a prior motion.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' young son and a restricted access schedule for the applicant father.

The father sought to restore the pre-motion shared parenting arrangement on a 2-2-3 basis.

The court found that the mother was the primary caregiver prior to separation and that the father's conduct, including leaving the child unattended in a car and on a doorstep, demonstrated serious lapses in judgment.

The court granted the mother temporary sole custody with final decision-making authority on major issues, while providing the father with significant parenting time.

The court also imposed a condition that the father not leave the child alone while in his care.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his 19-month-old daughter, EFN.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking supervised access at a supervised access centre and imposing several conditions, including a mental health assessment for the father.

The court granted the father's motion for supervised access, initially by a private agency and then by the paternal grandmother, to take place at the father's home.

Most of the mother's requested conditions were dismissed as unreasonable.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and her views on the father's culture racist, ordering her to pay costs to the father.