Adriana Doyle

The applicant filed two motions: one for a declaration of contempt against the respondent for non-compliance with orders, and another to modify supervised access arrangements for their child, Figaro, and to compel the respondent to provide information about the child.

The contempt motion was dismissed due to improper service.

For the second motion, the court, considering the child's best interests and expert recommendations, ordered weekly supervised visits for the applicant in Ottawa with a social worker, and directed the respondent to provide school, activity, and health information about the child.

The court declined to modify the existing supervised access order to allow visits at the applicant's home, emphasizing the need for supervised contact until the upcoming trial and noting the history of jurisdictional changes by the applicant.

L'intimé (père) a déposé une motion pour modifier une ordonnance finale en annulant la pension alimentaire pour enfant à compter de mars 2016 et en mettant fin à la pension alimentaire pour conjoint en février 2017, invoquant une perte d'emploi due à la maladie et un déménagement en Algérie.

La requérante (mère) s'est opposée, arguant qu'il n'y avait pas eu de changement important de circonstances, et a demandé le maintien de la pension alimentaire pour enfant, la prolongation de la pension alimentaire pour conjoint jusqu'en janvier 2018, et la permission de voyager avec l'enfant en Algérie avec le passeport algérien de l'enfant.

Le tribunal a conclu que le père était intentionnellement sous-employé, lui a attribué un revenu, a rejeté sa motion de modification de la pension alimentaire, a confirmé la fin de la pension alimentaire pour conjoint en janvier 2018, et a accordé les demandes de la mère concernant le voyage et le passeport algérien de l'enfant.

The Applicant father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and a change in child support.

The Respondent mother sought sole custody, reduced access, table child support, sharing of s. 7 expenses, reimbursement of Child Tax Credit and daycare costs, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, awarded joint custody to both parents, and maintained the existing parenting schedule (not equal time for father, not reduced for mother).

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, and to reimburse the mother for half of a Child Tax Credit payment and agreed daycare/coin costs.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety.

The applicant mother unilaterally removed the children from the matrimonial home and took them to a shelter, alleging abuse.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for interim parenting orders.

The court granted the father exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, ordered equal week-on/week-off parenting time, and appointed a psychologist to conduct an assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, with the father paying initially.

The court also ordered interim child support of $1,000 per month from the father to the mother and struck inadmissible evidence from both parties' affidavits, including unsworn letters, hearsay summaries, and references to settlement discussions.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order, seeking joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule for her 7-year-old daughter, H.M.C. The respondent father opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that contact was not in the child's best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's demonstrated progress in counselling, stable parenting of her other children, and cooperation with the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

While denying joint custody, the court ordered gradual supervised access for the mother through the Supervised Access Program, emphasizing the child's best interests, the need for professional guidance during reintegration, and the importance of sibling contact.

The court addressed the parties' inability to agree on an expert to prepare a Voice of the Child (VOC) Report for their 14-year-old son, Kent, as previously ordered.

After considering submissions from both the applicant mother and respondent father, the court appointed Janet Claridge, a neutral third-party expert, to prepare the VOC report.

The decision emphasized the importance of expert neutrality, rejecting candidates with prior involvement in the family's case due to potential bias.

The parties were ordered to equally share the costs of the report.

The court considered costs following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support and share transfer.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success and the Respondent's bad faith regarding income imputation.

The Respondent disputed success, citing the Applicant's disclosure delays and unreasonable income positions.

The court found divided success, noting both parties' unreasonableness in litigation conduct, including the Applicant's delayed disclosure and misstated income, and the Respondent's late amendment of her income position.

Neither party achieved a more favourable outcome than their offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order regarding child access and spousal support.

The applicant mother sought $5,000 in costs, arguing substantial success on spousal support and parenting arrangements.

The respondent father argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing mixed success and the mother's alleged unreasonableness.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court found the mother successful on spousal support and that the parenting outcome was more aligned with her proposal.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother $2,500 in costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs after an interim order granted her significant child and spousal support, a non-depletion order, and other relief, based on the respondent's significantly higher income.

The respondent argued for divided success.

The court found the applicant more successful on major issues, particularly spousal support and the non-depletion order, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, considering the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and counsel's reasonable rates.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's child support claim in Ontario for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant and child reside in Russia, a non-reciprocating jurisdiction, and that Ontario was *forum non conveniens*.

The applicant, residing in Russia, sought an Ontario order for enforceability due to the respondent's irregular payments.

The court found it had "presence-based" jurisdiction over the respondent, who lives in Ontario, and that the *Family Law Act* does not require the child to reside in Ontario.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, assuming jurisdiction and applying Ontario law, conditional on the applicant vacating the Russian support order.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where the respondent was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure of medical information.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's failure to comply with a separation agreement and court orders.

The respondent argued for no costs due to disability and divided success.

The court, applying Rule 24 factors, found the applicant largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and financial capacity.

The applicant moved to vary spousal support based on an amending separation agreement registered under the Family Law Act, arguing it became an order under the Divorce Act and a material change in circumstances (19% income reduction) justified a reduction.

The respondent opposed, arguing it should be treated as an initial application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, not a variation under s. 17, as the agreement was not incorporated into a divorce order.

The court found that an agreement registered under the Family Law Act does not become an order under the Divorce Act for variation purposes and that neither party had properly brought an application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, but the parties were given 30 days to address the court on how to proceed.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by the Respondent to vary a final order concerning child support, retroactive adjustments, and section 7 expenses.

The court found mixed success for both parties on the substantive issues.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, and counsel's rates, the court determined that the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, such as failing to comply with disclosure orders and a settlement conference requirement, warranted no award of costs to either party despite the mixed outcome.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders and spousal support.

The father sought joint custody and equal time, while the mother sought a specific parenting schedule and $2,000 monthly spousal support.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests given his sensitivity to change.

The court also found the mother entitled to interim spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, awarding her $2,000 per month, recognizing the relationship as one of "some permanence" under the Family Law Act despite its short duration.

The court considered costs following a 16-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,744.50, arguing success on most issues and the respondent mother's bad faith.

The respondent mother argued that prior costs were determined by Justice Shelston and that the father caused trial delays.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(11), the court found mixed success for both parties and noted unreasonable behaviour from both, including the father's breaches of interim orders and the mother's unreasonable position on travel.

Given the mixed success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered no costs.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, determination of Section 7 expenses, a non-depletion order against the husband's corporation, and financial disclosure.

The respondent husband disputed support quantum, sought income imputation for the wife, and opposed the non-depletion order.

The court determined the husband's income for support, declined to impute income to the wife, set ongoing child and spousal support, specified Section 7 expenses, issued a non-depletion order for $500,000 against the husband's corporation, and ordered specific financial disclosure.

Retroactive support claims were reserved for trial.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking spousal support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The request for sale was abandoned due to lack of court jurisdiction as the husband was the sole owner.

The applicant husband opposed spousal support, citing short cohabitation, the wife's extended residence in Africa during the marriage, alleged non-disclosure of bank accounts, and her ownership of properties in Africa.

The court found that the marriage had an economic impact on the wife's career and that the husband had a financial obligation due to an immigration sponsorship agreement.

The court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $800 per month, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to meet the wife's transitional needs and prevent reliance on social assistance.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for child support, while the Respondent also sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, their behaviour, and the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's offer was less favourable than the final order, and her expectations were deemed unrealistic.

The Respondent's offer was closer to the final order but did not meet formal requirements.

The Respondent was found to have breached a prior divorce order by failing to provide financial disclosure, leading to the Applicant incurring legal costs.

Considering both parties' conduct, the court made no order as to costs.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to dispense with the respondent's consent to adoption.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs due to the respondent's delays, while the respondent sought costs as the successful party in the underlying motion.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and jurisprudence, found that despite the respondent's success, his unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary delays and costs for the applicant.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought to vary a 2010 custody order for her son, AJ, who has moderately severe autism, requesting a week on/week off parenting schedule and a variation of child support.

She also sought determination of post-secondary costs for her daughter, Jessie.

The respondent father sought a variation of custody for AJ to 24/28 days with him, retroactive and ongoing child support, and an order appointing him as guardian of AJ's property.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to Jessie's departure for university.

The court ordered a week on/week off schedule for AJ, with the mother responsible for driving him to school to avoid long bus rides.

The mother was ordered to pay $7,193.14 in retroactive child support to the father and $500 per month directly to Jessie for her post-secondary education.

The father was appointed guardian of AJ's property, with a directive to share ODSP payments equally with the mother.