Ontario civil | Appeal
STAY PENDING APPEAL
Ruling compelling primary care parent to move was of questionable validity
Mother moved for stay pending appeal of order requiring her to relocate primary residence of her two children to Waterloo Region from Lindsay, where she currently resided with children. Her appeal was scheduled to be heard in either October or November 2013. There was some urgency because children were scheduled to begin school in September in Lindsay. Motion granted. There was serious question to be tried. It was at least arguable that ruling that compelled primary care parent to move to access parent’s community in order to preserve her primary care rights without consideration of all custodial criteria mandated by Children’s Law Reform Act (Ont.), was of questionable validity. There was also concern that conversion of mother’s three-year-old obligation to simply seek employment in Waterloo Region into obligation to obtain employment and to live in unspecified community in Waterloo Region was not warranted by wording of order, may exceed powers of court and might not even benefit father since mother was unprepared to live in Cambridge, where father wanted her to live. Mother would suffer irreparable harm because she would have to give up her job in Lindsay and move with children, and then move back if successful on appeal. Balance of convenience favoured mother.
Jones v. Jones (Aug. 21, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., D.J. Taliano J., File No. FS 656-13) 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 576.
Ruling compelling primary care parent to move was of questionable validity
Mother moved for stay pending appeal of order requiring her to relocate primary residence of her two children to Waterloo Region from Lindsay, where she currently resided with children. Her appeal was scheduled to be heard in either October or November 2013. There was some urgency because children were scheduled to begin school in September in Lindsay. Motion granted. There was serious question to be tried. It was at least arguable that ruling that compelled primary care parent to move to access parent’s community in order to preserve her primary care rights without consideration of all custodial criteria mandated by Children’s Law Reform Act (Ont.), was of questionable validity. There was also concern that conversion of mother’s three-year-old obligation to simply seek employment in Waterloo Region into obligation to obtain employment and to live in unspecified community in Waterloo Region was not warranted by wording of order, may exceed powers of court and might not even benefit father since mother was unprepared to live in Cambridge, where father wanted her to live. Mother would suffer irreparable harm because she would have to give up her job in Lindsay and move with children, and then move back if successful on appeal. Balance of convenience favoured mother.
Jones v. Jones (Aug. 21, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., D.J. Taliano J., File No. FS 656-13) 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 576.
