Alexandra Seaton

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto against parents E.S. and F.S. regarding three children (N., M., and A.) who had been exposed to domestic violence during the marriage.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the protection application, arguing that the Society had failed to establish grounds for protection and that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the Society's motion for temporary supervision with conditions, including that the father's access to the vulnerable child M. be subject to the child's wishes, while allowing unsupervised access to the younger child A. pending a full protection hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior support orders relating to spousal and child support following divorce.

The respondent sought an order striking the motion due to the applicant’s repeated failure to attend court proceedings, comply with costs orders, and pay support obligations.

Evidence established substantial arrears in child and spousal support and section 7 expenses.

The court found the applicant had effectively abandoned his motion and that his non-compliance with court orders justified striking his pleadings.

The respondent was awarded full indemnity costs and section 7 expenses, with amounts ordered enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought a reduction and eventual termination of spousal support obligations under a 2004 separation agreement, requesting retroactive effect from January 1, 2010.

The respondent opposed the reduction and sought payment of amounts owing under a cost-of-living clause.

The court found the respondent was more successful on the key issue of whether the support obligation should be terminated, ordering ongoing spousal support in a step-down manner rather than termination.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, accounting for litigation conduct, tax deductibility of legal fees, and time reasonably spent.

The applicant sought to reduce his spousal support obligation from $6,000 monthly to $3,000 monthly commencing January 1, 2010, and terminate it as of January 1, 2011, citing his retirement due to prostate cancer.

The respondent opposed the motion and claimed $16,414.84 owing under a cost of living clause.

The court determined this was a de novo review under the separation agreement rather than a variation requiring material change in circumstances.

The court found the applicant had not fully retired from business and imputed 50% of his prior business income.

The court reduced support to $5,000 monthly for 2011, $4,600 monthly for 2012, and $3,900 monthly from 2013 onward.

The court awarded the respondent $9,412.98 for cost of living increases from October 2005 to December 2009.