Written on behalf of NULaw

How A Parent’s Move Can Impact Access Schedules

For parents who are divorced or separated, the start of the school year can bring with it conflict in a relationship that is otherwise free of it. Of course, parents are not the only ones who experience feelings of stress during these moments. Switching schools or changing parenting schedules can be tough on children, too. A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice shows how the courts approach requests to have children change schools as well as how such decisions may impact pre-existing parenting schedules.

Switching schools

The trial followed a previous order granted on June 18, allowing the mother to move two of the couple’s youngest children (they have three) from one school district to another. The move from Barrhaven to Orleans, Ontario, is just under 40km. The father had opposed this, but when the order was issued the judge indicated that he was prepared to make a modest increase to the father’s parenting time, particularly with the youngest of the children (“L”). This statement was made due to the challenges created by the mother’s relocation to Orleans. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on what that parenting schedule would be, so the matter ended up back before the same judge.

The father’s position

The father was looking for a summer schedule that saw him have care of L from 4:00pm Tuesday-4:00pm Wednesday, from 4:00pm Thursday to 4:00pm Friday, and every other weekend from 4:00pm Friday until 9:00am Monday. During the school year he proposed a similar schedule, though with times slightly changed due to school.

The father’s position was that the parenting schedule reflects the one that L had been used to, maximizing time between L and the father. The father stated L enjoys spending time with him and thrives when that time is increased. The father also said the proposal ensures driving is split between both parties, but with an increase of driving for the mother.

The father stated that the mother’s proposed schedule (explained below) was not acceptable because it does not follow the status quo, it reduces his overnight visits, and it involves more driving than is necessary.

The mother’s proposal

The mother’s proposal saw L spending every other weekend with the father. Following weekends with his mother, he would stay with the father from Tuesday at 5:30pm until Thursday at 8:30pm. On weekends where he stayed with his father, the father would have L from Wednesday at 5:30pm to Thursday at 8:30pm. Each parent would also get a straight week of time in the summer.

The court’s analysis

The court noted that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) stated that it had not been able to speak about the proposals with L, but mentioned in the past he expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. The OCL suggested that travel time be limited and that L not be subjected to the tension between the parents.

The court noted that the best interests of L must be front and centre in its decision. The court noted that the existing parenting schedule had been working well for L, and that a modest increase in time for the father should still resemble the existing arrangement. The court also found that exchanges should occur in a neutral location, but that the mother bears some added responsibilities of driving due to her decision to move.

Ultimately, the court determined that the father’s proposal, with some changes, was the best for L.

If you are contemplating a separation, or are already in the process, and there are children involved, your first step should be to consult with a family lawyer who has experience with custody and access matters. NULaw and its predecessors have been helping clients in Toronto since 1953. We provide clear, practical advice so that clients can make informed decisions about their parental rights. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation.


Financial Urgency During COVID-19

We have blogged in the past about the approach courts have been taking during COVID-19 to determine if a family law matter is urgent enough to be hold while the courts were largely closed. Most of our blogs on this topic dealt with the safety or health of children. That said, financial issues can also be cause for the courts to hear a matter, as was the case with a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Some background info

The parties were married in the summer of 2009. They had two children while married. The wife was the primary caregiver throughout the marriage, but now works as a financial administrator, earning about $67,000 per year. The children remained primarily in her care (without a formal order) following their separation.

The husband is now self-employed, but worked in a senior position at a bank until 2017, earning between $700,000 and $900,000 per year in that role. He took long-term disability leave in 2017, leading to his attempts to start his own business.

The couple own two properties, including a house worth about $2,000,000 and a cottage worth about $800,000. The wife stated that she has about $204,000 in RRSPs and TFSAs, but that amount had decreased by about $30,000 in the weeks leading up to the hearing.

The line of credit

The wife stated that she went to her bank on February 20, 2020, where she was informed that the parties’ line of credit had been drained by the husband to the tune of $775,000, which had been registered against the home. When she asked the husband about it, he admitted that he had taken it out and put it in a “safe place.” The “safe place” ended up being a personal bank account owned by the husband.

The husband later said he took the money out of the line of credit because he was suspicious the wife was having an affair. The wife began to worry about the husband’s mental health and moved with the children to the home of her parents on March 4, 2020. She stated she was worried that the husband was following her and had installed spyware on her phone.

Is the matter urgent?

After reviewing case law, including decisions that were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court stated that the following factors are necessary in order to meet the urgency test during the pandemic:

  1. The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;
  2. The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or  safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;
  3. The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child’s health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;
  4. It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.

The court determined that the financial situation the family was in constituted urgency, highlighting the alleged erratic personal and financial behvaiour by the husband as well as his unliteral conduct. The court also found there was a significant risk that the money would not be returned without an order, and that it would leave the wife without access to their home, which is their most valuable asset.

The court ordered that the husband had 24 hours to return the money to their line of credit (plus interest). The court also suggested that the husband retain legal counsel in order to continue working through the parties’ issues.

Separations can be uncertain and emotional. Your best plan through this transition is to have an experienced family lawyer on your side to provide guidance and assistance, and to protect your legal rights. Contact NULaw online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation with our experienced divorce lawyer.


COVID-19 Is No Excuse On Failure To Act In Estate Dispute

The impact of COVID-19 has been felt by everyone, and in many areas of life, people and organizations have received leniency in some of the obligations people face in their lives, such as student loans, credit card payments. People without income due to COVID-19 have also received benefits from various levels of government. However, as a recent decision Ontario Superior Court of Justice demonstrates, COVID-19 can’t be an excuse for everything.

The family home

The mother of three children (two daughters and one son) died on December 27, 2018. Her children were named jointly as estate trustees in her will. The most significant asset owned by the deceased was a house with a market value of about $900,000. The son and his family had been living in the home since 2012.

An order had been made on February 6 2020 requiring the son to have the house listed for sale by April 15 2020. The son had an option to purchase the house by April 14 2020.

The daughters brought an application to the court asking for the home to be sold. The son brought a motion seeking an extension of the deadline due to “circumstances he attributes to the COVID-19 pandemic.” He took the position that the pandemic precluded his ability to purchase the home by the deadline imposed by the court.

The son’s position

The son lived with the mother in 2012 and stayed there until one year before her death when she had to move out for health reasons. In an affidavit he explained that he paid expenses for maintaining the home and was somewhat responsible for the $400,000 appreciation in its value over that time.

The sisters alleged that the property taxes on the home had not been paid for three years. The son does not dispute this, though said he was not receiving mail indicating the property taxes had fallen into arrears. He claims to have tried to pay the city for outstanding property taxes, but that they were not accepting payments at the time due to COVID-19.

The son said he tried to get a real estate agent to come see the house, but was unable to do so. He also said COVID-19 prevented him from going to banks.

The daughters’ positions

The daughters took the position that the son and his family have lived in the home for many years without paying rent or expenses. Since the death of their mother, no rent had been paid to the estate. They claim that in addition to not paying taxes on the home, the son has also neglected maintenance and repairs on it.

The daughters argue that a careful review of the son’s evidence shows no proof of a deflated housing market, government offices being closed, banking services not being available, or evidence that he would be prejudiced if the timelines were enforced.

The daughters proposed that the son would not likely qualify for financing to purchase the house. They request the house be put for sale and in the meantime that the son pay occupation rent for living in it.

The court’s analysis

The court agreed with the daughters’ position that the son provided no evidence to support his position, including records of attempts to contact government of financial institutions. The court said it could not overlook the son’s failure to attempt to contact someone by email. The court noted that if the housing market really was deflated, he likely could have made a lower offer than the house’s market value prior to COVID-19.

Without any evidence to support his request, the court dismissed his motion to extend the deadline. The daughters were granted the power to sell the home. In the meantime, the son was ordered to pay rent of $2,000 per month.

Contact the experienced estate litigation lawyer at NULaw in Toronto to learn how we can protect your interests and achieve the best possible resolution of your estate dispute. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation today.


International Abduction When The Hague Convention Does Not Apply

Despite how large the world can be (even with technology making it seem smaller every day ) countries still demonstrate ways to work together for common goals. One of the results of this is the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“The Hague Convention”). It is an agreement between over 100 countries on how to handle situations where a child is unlawfully removed by a parent from one member country to another. We’ve blogged about the Hague Convention before, but we haven’t had a chance to discuss how courts deal with situations where the Hague Convention does not apply because the other country is not a signee. This was the situation in a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

From Kuwait to Canada

The parents involved in the case were married in Kuwait in 2008. They separated on March 14, 2018. They had three children together prior to their separation. On March 17, 2018 the Hawally Family Court in Kuwait issued an order establishing custody and visitation rights for the children and parents. The order saw the mother responsible for primary care of the children.

On May 14, 2018 the mother left Kuwait with the children and headed to the United States. Once there she and the children made their way to Canada where they made refugee claims.

The mother and children were living with family in Ontario when the father turned to the Ontario courts to have the children returned to Kuwait.

The mother’s claims

The mother said she was worried about the safety of her and the children if they were made to return to Kuwait. In March, 2018, an event described by the court as a “significant domestic conflict” occurred involving both parents and extended family. The police were called and their children were witness to the events. She said that there was a risk of violence if they were to return.

The mother said the gather was sexually and physically abusive towards her and was also physically abusive towards the children.

The father denied the mother’s claims of abuse. His lawyers stated that he would not pursue kidnapping charges against the mother if she were to return to Kuwait, and stated he did not wish to have them removed from their mother’s care.

The Hague Convention does not apply

In cases where both countries involved as signatories to the Hague Convention, there would be processes in place to return the children home. However, since that is not the case here (Kuwait is not a Hague Convention member) the courts turned to the Children’s Law Reform Act. The Act gives Ontario courts jurisdiction where a child is physically present in the province and may face harm if returned home.

In this case, the court determined the mother had not provided reliable enough evidence to demonstrate that the children would be subject to abuse if returned home. The court noted that the mother was inconsistent with her testimony and became argumentative when confronted with this. In addition, an expert on Sharia law (which is in place in Kuwait) stated that Kuwait is a very “progressive” Muslim country and has modern laws to protect women and children. As a result, the mother and children were ordered to return back to Kuwait.

If you are contemplating a separation, or are already in the process, and there are children involved, your first step should be to consult with a family lawyer who has experience with custody and access matters. NULaw and its predecessors have been helping clients in Toronto since 1953. We provide clear, practical advice so that clients can make informed decisions about their parental rights. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation.


Father Disputes Ownership Of Property With Children

The division of family property can be a contentious issue, especially if one party believes they have not received a fair share of the property or other assets. A recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario provides a good look at what happens when land is distributed following the death of one parent.

The background

The deceased, MLG, had one child, JG. She married RGK and had two children together. MLG bought a property in 1983 and began to live on it. In 1996 she transferred the title of the property to herself and JG as joint tenants (the “1996 transfer”). MLG’s will at that time was signed in 1978 (the “1978 Will”) and named JG as the sole beneficiary. JG’s children were named as beneficiaries if JG was to predecease MLG. If she had no children, her husband, RGK, was the beneficiary.

In 2008 JG and her immediate family moved in with MLG. JG died on July 22, 2014, and RGK continued to reside with MLG on the property.

MLG moved into a long-term care home in July or August 2015. During this time RGK continued to live on the property, though MLG continued to pay all of the costs associated with it.

MLG made a new will (the “2015 Will”). The will named the children of RGK and JG as the executors and trustees of the estate. Part of the will said,

I GIVE, DEVISE AND BEQUEATH all my property of every nature and kind and wheresoever situate, … to my said Trustee[s] upon the following trusts, namely:

(b) To transfer any home or condominium I may die possessed of to my son-in-law (RGK), and my grandchildren, (GWBK)and (ELK).

The dispute

Upon the death of MLG, RGK claimed a two-thirds entitlement to the property. He maintained that when he and JG moved into the property it became their matrimonial home, and it remained so until JG’s death. RGK claimed that the joint tenancy in the property was deemed to have been severed immediately before JG’s death, and that as the beneficiary of her will, he became one-half owner of the property along with MLG.

Meanwhile, RGK’s children contended that each of them and RGK were entitled to a one-third interest in the property. Their position comes from MLG’s transfer of the title to herself and JG as joint tenants in 1996, which raised the presumption of a resulting trust. They stated that their mother did not have a beneficial interest in the property, and that the 2015 Will supported their position.

The court’s analysis

The court agreed with the application judge’s decision that the presumption of the 1996 transfer created a resulting trust rather than a gift. While RGK tried to argue that the 1978 Will rebutted the presumption of resulting trust. However, the court agreed with the application judge’s finding that the 2015 Will shows MLG’s intentions at that time.

In order for the property to be considered a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act, both JG and RGK would have had to have an interest in the property. In this case, JG was on title to the property in the capacity of a trustee, which is not an interest in the property according to the Act.

If you are thinking about challenging the will of a family member or friend, the results-oriented, effective estate lawyer at NULaw in Toronto can help. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 before you take any action. We will help you navigate your options and formulate a pragmatic game-plan for moving forward.


Executor Warns Of Risks Associated With Role

We’ve blogged on a number of occasions about the responsibility that comes with accepting the role of executor in an estate. An executor is responsible for administrating the estate of someone who has passed. Their responsibilities include actions such as distributing the deceased’s assets according to the will, settling any debts left behind, and wrapping up outstanding tax obligations. However, in a case recently reported on by the Toronto Star, one Ontario man says a contested estate he served as executor for left both his finances and his reputation in ruin.

Accepting the role

The story explains that the deceased was a friend and client of the executor (who is an accountant). He was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2010. The deceased wrote two wills. The first left his entire estate to his common-law wife. He wrote another that left his assets to her as well as some of his friends and business associates. Both wills excluded his daughter.

The executor told the Star that the daughter was omitted from the will because she had been taken care of financially via a separation agreement the deceased made with his daughter’s mother (who was not his common-law wife at the time of his death).

The will is contested

The deceased passed away five months after his cancer diagnosis. The daughter contested the will, arguing that her father had “lacked capacity…(and) suffered from delusions,” which led to him omitting her from the wills.

Eventually, the wills were found to be invalid. The daughter had made two offers to settle before a decision was reached, but both were rejected. The first would have seen her receive her father’s cottage, his wedding ring, and his ashes. A second offer asked for $2.5 million. When the wills were eventually ruled to be invalid, the daughter was set to receive the entire estate, worth $7.5 million.

Executor and trustee are found liable

The court found that both the executor and a trustee personally liable for the daughter’s legal bills. This was following accusations by the daughter that the trial was “nothing short of a nightmare” and that there were attempts to disparage her character and play down her relationship to her father.

In addition to being partially responsible for the costs of the daughter, the executor told the The Star that trustee had been left with legal bills exceeding $900,000. He said he also paid $100,000 in legal bills. Neither the trustee nor the executor were able to collect their legal fees from the estate.

NULaw provides executors, trustees, and attorneys with fulsome advice on their responsibilities and obligations, and will help them mitigate any legal risks and liabilities so that they are protected and the best interests of the beneficiaries and estate are maintained. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 for a consultation.


Can A Motion To Terminate Spousal Support Be Considered Urgent?

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing COVID-19’s impact on family law over the last few months. With the courts only hearing matters deemed urgent, only very specific matters would make it before a judge. While we are seeing courts begin to re-open, they aren’t entirely back to normal, and may not be for quite some time. In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, we see how the courts assess urgency as it relates to a motion to terminate spousal support.

A material change in circumstances

The parties were subject to a final order in 2013 which saw the husband making monthly spousal support payments of $2,118 to the wife. This was based on recorded income of $21,000 for the wife and $90.167 for the husband.

The husband started a Motion to Change in April, asking that his spousal support obligations be terminated. The wife opposed the motion. The husband’s position was that since retiring, his income has dropped considerably. In the meantime, he said the parties did not comply with an order to exchange financial information each year, and in two of the last four years the wife made considerably more money than he did, though he continued to pay spousal support anyhow. In the meantime, he stated his post-retirement income is only about two-thirds of what it was prior to his retirement.

Is the matter urgent?

The court set out to determine whether the matter was urgent enough to hear. In addition to hearing matters related to the safety or wellbeing of a child, the courts can hear matters related to “dire issues regarding the parties’ financial circumstances including for example the need for a non-depletion order.”

The test to see whether an issue fits that description was set out in a Notice to the Profession on May 19, 2020, and includes and analysis of the following:

1. The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;

2. The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;

3. The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child’s health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;

4. It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.

The court said that while it will reserve judgment on the merits of the husband’s request, it does pass the test for being a “pressing” issue and therefore can be subject to an interim order. The court relied on common law to make an interim motion, finding that the husband had a strong prima facie case, a clear case of hardship, urgency, and had come to the court with “clean hands.”

The court ordered all spousal support payments to stop immediately and remain so until the matter can heard by the court.

Contact NULaw as soon as possible if you are contemplating a separation, or have already begun the process. We are dedicated to pursuing your interests and getting exceptional results. Let us focus on your rights and negotiate the best possible outcome for you while you focus on rebuilding and moving on. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation.


Husband Lays Out A Slew Of Material Changes In Circumstance, But Court Doesn’t Buy It

The obligation to pay spousal support can be a tough pill to swallow for some, and despite the legal requirements to pay it, some people take measures to avoid paying it. While there are valid reasons for spousal support to be reduced or terminated, trying to skirt the law is not a recommended tactic. Take for example the situation in a case recently heard by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

A material change in circumstances?

The parties were married for 34 years before separating. The husband co-owned a pharmacy and a 2014 order required him to pay $5,000 per month in spousal support. However, he told the court that a number of events have led to a material change in circumstances. But whether the court agreed with him on any of those events is a different matter. Let’s look at them one-by-one.

CRA re-assessment

A 2017 CRA re-assessment of the husband left him with an income tax bill of $295,000. This was in addition to other debts of about $60,000 and a mortgage of $375,000 on the home he shared with his second wife. As a result of this he declared bankruptcy on May 1, 2017.

The husband’s bankruptcy documents said he would entitled to an automatic discharge on January 29, 2018. However, the husband said he didn’t know when he would be discharged, stating it would not be until he repaid all his money owing.
Additionally, the husband said he was paying his bankruptcy trustee $500 per month, when his bankruptcy documents say he was only obligated to pay $180 per month.

The court found that once his bankruptcy is discharged, he no longer has to pay back any money previously owed. As a result, it should not prevent him from paying spousal support. As a result, it was not found to be a material change in circumstances.

Retirement

The husband opened a pharmacy in 1984 with an ownership stake of 40%. He began receiving Canada Pension Plan payments in mid-2015 and sold his interest in the pharmacy later that year for $455,000.

He had kept the marital home following the divorce, and after the divorce he renovated it, replacing the flooring, windows, and roof. However, following his retirement, he tore down the home and used the money from the sale of the pharmacy to build two homes; one for his new family (his second wife and their three children) as well as his second wife’s parents.  

The court found that the husband could not have retired, lacking the means to do so. He saved none of the money from the sale of his business, and he took on additional responsibility by adopting the young children of his second wife. The court found no material change in circumstance here.

Separation from the second wife and financial obligations related to their three children

The husband also claimed that he could not pay spousal support due to the obligations he had for his second family. However, the court noted that he wasn’t with the second wife when he got divorced. Separating from the second wife is not a material change in circumstances, but rather a return to the previous situation.

The husband and the second wife have an agreement where neither has to pay spousal support, and they continue to share their home.

The court also found that there were no child support payments on the husbands tax documents, likely because he was paying it voluntarily. The court found that all of the husband’s money was deposited into the second wife’s bank account, an amount higher than he was obligated to provide.

Altogether, the court found that there was no material change in circumstances related to any of the husband’s claims. As a result, his obligations to pay $5,000 in spousal support remain unchanged.

Contact NULaw as soon as possible if you are contemplating a separation, or have already begun the process. We are dedicated to pursuing your interests and getting exceptional results. Let us focus on your rights and negotiate the best possible outcome for you while you focus on rebuilding and moving on. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation.


Questions Arise Over Who Manages Inheritance For Minor Upon Father’s Death

Having a will is one of the most important things a person can do in order to prepare their estate in the event of their death. A valid will is the best way to ensure that your loved ones are taken care of, and that your estate is distributed with as little a likelihood of litigation as possible. A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice highlights the importance of having a valid will after a father died intestate, or without a will, leaving questions about who would be responsible for funds to be paid to his child.

Property in two provinces

The deceased died intestate in July 2019, leaving behind a ten-year-old son and his wife. At the time of his death the family lived in Ontario. The wife and child are the only beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate.

Under Ontario’s Family Law Act, the wife was entitled to all of the deceased’s Ontario assets. However, he also owned a condo in Montreal. Upon its sale, the proceeds of the condo would be distributed to the wife and the child.

The Children’s Lawyer was appointed as a litigation guardian for the minor, which was required in order for the condo to be sold. The Children’s Lawyer argued that the wife should be appointed the guardian of property for the purpose of sale of the condo, but that the child’s portion of the sale proceeds be paid into the court. The wife wanted to manage the child’s property until he turned 18.

The positions of the parties

The wife provided the court with a plan about what she would do to manage the child’s inheritance, including placing it in GIC’s, and perhaps over time, in RESPs. She said she would be able to provide for the child without using his inheritance.

The Children’s Lawyer opposed the RESP idea because it could be seen as an asset of the wife’s in the event of family law of bankruptcy proceedings at a later date. It should be noted that the wife’s ability as a caregiver or a mother were not called into question.

The court’s analysis

The court reviewed case law and determined that there were inconsistencies in regards to how RESPs were treated in the event of bankruptcies. This left the court to determine that “for several reasons, there is a risk that a minor, upon reaching the age 18, will not receive monies invested in an RESP.”

As a result of this, the court determined that it would be in the child’s best interests that the Inheritance be paid into the courts until the child reached the age of 18.

Contact NULaw in Toronto to obtain effective legal guidance with all of your estate planning needs, including wills and powers of attorney. An experienced estate lawyer can help you achieve your long-term goals and objectives, and plan ahead to protect yourself and your loved ones. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation today.


Mother Regains Possession Of Matrimonial Home During COVID-19

While Ontario begins to roll out its plan to re-open, the courts consider to hear only urgent items as it relates to family law. Unfortunately, urgent situations to continue to arise, and a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice highlights what constitutes urgent as well as how COVID-19 impacts the way courts expect people to behave.

Assault charge and separation

The parties were married in early 1999 and remained so until early 2020, after 21 years of marriage. They had three children together during their marriage, two of who are in university and one of whom is 13-years-old. The mother alleges that the father was physically, emotionally, and financially abusive towards her throughout the marriage. At the time they separated, the father was criminally charged with assault and was ordered to stay out of the family home.

The home the couple lived in is owned by the father’s father (“BF”). Following the alleged assault, BF and the father returned to the home and asked the mother to take him back. When she refused, BF told her he was raising their rent to $2,200 from $1,250. She was not able to pay this because she said the father controlled their finances.

A second assault was alleged to have occurred in February. After fleeing the home during the assault, the mother has been unable to return and was living with a friend when she brought the motion to have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (which the father can’t live in due to his bail conditions) as well as custody of their youngest child.

The father contends that a tenant who used to live in the basement of the home is now residing in the entire home, and that the mother’s decision to live with friends has not been something that can accommodate visits with the child during COVID-19.

The matrimonial home and custody of the youngest child

The court labeled the father and BF’s attempts to keep the mother out of the home as a “scheme” designed with the intent to put the mother “in a terrible predicament for (the father and BF’s) tactical advantage in the litigation.” The court was presented with no evidence to demonstrate that the tenant from the basement had moved into the rest of the home. There was also no evidence about what happened to the parties’ household possessions.

The mother was granted exclusive possession of the home.

The court also found that the mother and the child have a close and loving relationship and was worried that the father might be trying to alienate the child from the mother. The court also found that the father did not seem able to act responsibly as a parent to the youngest child or their older children, the later of whom he had involved in the dispute through the production of affidavits. The court determined that the mother would live primarily with the mother with scheduled visits to the father’s home.

For more than half a century, NULaw and its predecessors have been known for excellence in providing legal services, strong advocacy, and client-focused services. We represent business owners & entrepreneursbusinessesfamilies, and individuals who want a personalized and practical approach to their matter. Contact NULaw online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation today.