Alex Pazaratz

This decision addresses an urgent parenting motion regarding a 10-year-old child, PRW.

The father, James Rufus Walker, withheld the child from the mother, Alecia Rachelle Innes, after a scheduled visit, claiming longstanding concerns about the child's welfare.

The court found that the father’s actions did not meet the threshold of urgency required to justify unilateral action and disruption of the status quo.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother and emphasized the importance of following court orders, discouraging self-help remedies, and considering the best interests of the child above all.

This decision concerns a motion regarding the relocation of a 10-month-old child, Georgia, by her mother from Hamilton to Meaford, Ontario, without the father's consent.

The court reviews the parties' affidavits and the circumstances of the move, including issues of urgency, domestic violence allegations, parenting capacity, and the impact of distance on the child's relationship with both parents.

The court orders the mother to pursue arrangements to relocate back to Hamilton and to provide documentation of her housing applications, while maintaining the current parenting schedule with conditions.

In this child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the maternal grandmother moved to be added as a party and sought expanded, unsupervised, and overnight access to her two young grandchildren.

The Hamilton Child & Family Supports agency opposed the motion, arguing that the grandmother did not qualify as a statutory parent and that her past conduct raised safety and cooperation concerns.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the grandmother failed to establish that her participation as a party was necessary or in the children's best interests.

The court also declined to expand access, noting that the children required stability and that the grandmother's current supervised access was sufficient.

This motion concerned the adjournment of a 10-day family law trial primarily focused on parenting and child support.

The respondent mother sought the adjournment due to the applicant father's late disclosure of a significant change in his employment status.

The father opposed, arguing the change did not impact the main parenting issue.

The court granted the adjournment, acknowledging the court's inability to call the trial during scheduled sittings and the need to respect solicitor availability.

However, the mother's request for costs "thrown away" due to the late disclosure was dismissed, with the court deferring this to the trial judge and noting shared responsibility for systemic delays.

Mandatory questioning was ordered to resolve outstanding disclosure issues before any further settlement conference.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing proposals for an interim parenting schedule for their two young children, aged 22 months and 6 months.

The father sought equal time and immediate overnights for the infant, while the mother sought to reduce the father's time with the older child and delay overnights for the infant.

The court strongly criticized the parents' high-conflict litigation approach.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court maintained the father's existing overnight schedule for the older child and ordered a gradual implementation of overnights for the infant, commencing in February 2025.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking unsupervised parenting time and police enforcement, among other relief, in a family law case that had been dormant for nearly six years.

The respondent mother, now self-represented, sought an adjournment to respond to new allegations.

The court criticized both parties for the prolonged inactivity and for attempting to litigate complex, triable issues via motion, emphasizing that motions are not a substitute for a trial.

The judge granted the mother's adjournment request and requested Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, declining to make immediate police enforcement orders given the child's expressed reluctance and the need for proper evidentiary standards.

In a family law matter involving parenting and financial issues, the court strongly criticized the parties' prolonged reliance on temporary motions and their failure to advance the case to a final resolution through trial.

Despite a two-year litigation history marked by delays, outstanding disclosure, and uncompleted questioning, the parties brought new motions and cross-motions.

The judge emphasized that endless temporary motions disservice children and burden the court, urging parties to move towards a comprehensive oral hearing.

Ultimately, the parties withdrew their respective motions by consent and were ordered to schedule a Trial Scheduling Conference.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a December 13, 2023 motion where the Applicant mother sought leave to file fresh evidence in an appeal of an arbitration award concerning children's schooling.

The mother was substantially successful on her motion, obtaining leave to file evidence from one therapist and an updated Voice of the Child report, while her request for evidence from a parenting coordinator was dismissed.

The Respondent father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court found the mother entitled to costs, but not full recovery, due to issues with proportionality and the use of multiple counsel.

The father was ordered to pay $15,000.00 in costs to the mother.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion for interim changes to parenting arrangements, including primary residence, schooling, decision-making authority, and child support, just three months before a scheduled 10-day trial.

The court found the mother's motion lacked evidence and justification for such significant changes to a long-standing status quo.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay the respondent father $14,000.00 in costs, emphasizing that litigants are responsible for the choices they make and the expenses they create, particularly when pursuing unreasonable claims, and that impecuniosity does not shield a party from costs liability.

Following a motion where the respondent father successfully obtained an order for spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the father was overwhelmingly successful on the most important issues and acted reasonably, whereas the mother pursued unreasonable legal positions despite her claims of an inability to pay.

The mother was ordered to pay costs of $7,700 to the father, subject to a set-off for any previous costs owed by the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an interim order to change the primary residence and school of her eight-year-old son, Nathan, from the father to her.

This motion was brought despite a 10-day trial on the same issue being scheduled in three months.

The child had been primarily residing with the father for two years following serious mental health issues in the mother's household.

The mother argued the father engaged in "self-help" by not returning the child and sought to rely on certain factual findings from an OCL report.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding insufficient compelling evidence to justify disrupting the two-year status quo, especially given the imminent trial where all evidence could be fully tested.

The decision emphasized the child's need for stability and the importance of maintaining a successful status quo in interim parenting orders.

The father successfully moved to adjourn a family law trial after his lawyer was removed from the record.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $6,251.68 for the motion and costs thrown away, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the mother's offer did not trigger Rule 18 consequences because it included non-severable terms and a pre-determined costs component.

The court also declined to award costs thrown away due to a lack of particulars regarding wasted preparation.

Finding divided success on the motion, the court ordered no costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The father had been out of the workforce since 2011 and was entirely financially dependent on the applicant mother.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to impute income to the father for child support.

The court found the father established entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The court declined to impute income to the father at the interim stage, noting his lack of employment history over the past decade.

The mother was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $2,800 per month, and her cross-motion for child support was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a long-standing family law dispute concerning parenting issues and jurisdiction, marked by the respondent father's persistent non-participation and procedural abuses.

The father, residing in Saskatchewan, had previously obtained a custody order in Jordan and initiated parallel proceedings in Saskatchewan, seeking to have the children, who live in Hamilton with the applicant mother, returned to Jordan.

The Saskatchewan application was dismissed due to the father's non-appearance and lack of jurisdiction.

The Ontario court, frustrated by the father's continued failure to participate in the Hamilton proceedings, refused to schedule a trial.

Instead, the court directed the applicant mother to bring a motion to strike the father's pleadings, enabling the case to proceed on an uncontested basis and avoid further waste of judicial resources.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion where the respondent mother successfully obtained an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession.

The court found the applicant father's litigation conduct to be in bad faith, characterized by intentional withholding of information, contradictions in sworn evidence, and bizarre, intimidating communications directed at the mother's lawyer.

Despite the father's self-represented status and claims of inability to pay, the court emphasized that impecuniosity does not shield a litigant from costs for unreasonable or bad faith behavior.

The court fixed costs at $8,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the father to the mother.

The parties, who share equal parenting time of their six-year-old child, brought cross-motions to change a 2022 final parenting order and cross-motions for declarations of breach under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought to drastically reduce the father's parenting time and expand her sole decision-making authority, alleging the father breached the order and engaged in family violence.

The father sought increased decision-making authority.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the child's routine illnesses and school attendance, granting the mother enhanced decision-making authority in those specific areas.

However, the court dismissed both parties' requests for major changes to the parenting schedule and decision-making framework, finding that the equal-time arrangement remained in the child's best interests despite the parents' high conflict.

Declarations of breach were made against both parties.

The applicant father, a civil litigation lawyer with no family law experience, sought to adjourn his family court trial to retain new counsel after his previous lawyer was removed from the record.

The respondent mother opposed a lengthy adjournment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution, particularly concerning the child's proposed relocation to Ireland and the upcoming school year.

The court granted a shorter adjournment than requested by the father, rescheduling the trial to June 2024, making it peremptory on the father, and conditionally delaying the sale of the matrimonial home to align with the new trial date, balancing the father's need for representation with the child's best interests and the mother's right to timely resolution.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home due to imminent bank foreclosure and to strike the applicant father's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The father opposed the sale, asserting the children's best interests and his efforts to manage the property.

The court granted the mother's request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the father's consent and granting the mother sole authority over the sale process.

The motion to strike pleadings was adjourned.

The court found the property unaffordable for the father, the sale inevitable, and no legitimate family law claims prejudiced by the sale, also noting the father's uncooperative and bizarre conduct.

The applicant father brought an urgent pre-case conference motion seeking reinstatement of an alleged parenting-time status quo and relief concerning the Christmas school break.

The court held that Rule 14 permits such motions only in situations of urgency, hardship, or where the interests of justice otherwise require, and found the evidentiary record insufficient to resolve the parties' sharply conflicting accounts of the prior parenting arrangement.

The court found the mediation report, child support history, and text messages more consistent with the respondent mother's position, and concluded there was no hardship warranting urgent intervention before case management.

Holiday parenting time was resolved on consent, the balance of the motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to adduce fresh evidence on her appeal of an arbitration award that ordered the parties' two children to change schools.

The mother sought to introduce evidence from the children's therapist and the parenting coordinator, which the arbitrator had previously refused to hear, as well as an updated Voice of the Child report.

Applying the Palmer test with the flexibility required in family law cases involving the best interests of children, the court allowed fresh evidence from the therapist and ordered an updated Voice of the Child report to ensure the appeal judge has current information.

The request to adduce evidence from the parenting coordinator was dismissed.