Ann L. Stoner

The applicant brought a motion to set aside specific provisions of a 2017 consent order, particularly those related to property and the matrimonial home, while seeking to preserve the spousal support release.

The applicant argued lack of independent legal advice, lack of understanding, and unconscionability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud, mistake, or unconscionability.

The judge emphasized the judicial oversight present when the consent order was made, distinguishing it from a domestic contract, and reiterated the high bar for setting aside final judgments, concluding the applicant's motion was a case of "buyer's remorse."

This endorsement addresses two motions in a family law matter.

The respondent father sought increased parenting time, equal sharing of reunification therapy costs, and an order preventing the applicant mother from recording children's telephone calls.

The applicant mother sought supervised and public parenting time, and a higher contribution from the father for therapy costs.

The court granted the father's requests regarding the recording of calls and the equal division of reunification therapy costs.

The mother's request for supervised and public parenting time was dismissed.

The court ordered a more gradual increase in the father's parenting time than he proposed, aiming for a shared parenting regime, and denied the father's request for make-up parenting time.

This family law trial addressed six key issues following the separation and divorce of the parties, L.C. (Applicant mother) and N.C. (Respondent father), who have four children.

The primary dispute concerned the ownership of the matrimonial home, "Winterberry," which was solely on title in L.C.'s name but was found by the court to be jointly owned by both parties based on resulting and constructive trust principles.

The transfer of title to L.C. in 2009 was determined to be for the purpose of protecting the asset from N.C.'s creditors, not a gift.

The court valued the home at $1,065,000 as of the separation date.

The court also determined the equalization payment owed by L.C. to N.C., accepting N.C.'s expert valuation of his business interests and a CIBC loan, but rejecting N.C.'s claim of a debt to his mother, finding those advances were gifts.

L.C.'s requests for unequal division and installment payments were denied.

N.C. was ordered to pay $21,891.53 in section 7 expenses arrears forthwith, with the court explicitly denying a set-off against the equalization payment due to N.C.'s prior misconduct of improperly taking money from the children.

Directions were given for the division of home contents, but no orders were made regarding securing child support or further payments for money taken from the children due to insufficient evidence.

The parties resolved a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $8,841.12, while the respondent sought $5,000.00.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the settlement reflected a true compromise and neither party beat their respective offers.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The trial addressed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and equalization issues.

The court determined that the applicant did not owe retroactive child support but owed retroactive spousal support of $51,238.

Ongoing child and spousal support were set based on the applicant's income of $153,449 and the respondent's imputed income of $25,000.

Spousal support was made subject to a material change of circumstances upon the applicant's actual retirement.

The court also addressed the imputation of income for the respondent and the add-back of certain business expenses for the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligation for two adult children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for recalculation of child support from May 2015 onwards.

The court terminated the father's obligation for both children effective December 31, 2016, finding that both had ceased to qualify as children of the marriage under the applicable statutory definitions.

The court granted the mother's claim for recalculation of support for the period prior to termination, finding she had standing to pursue the claim as it was originally pleaded when both children were entitled to support.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

This is an evidentiary ruling in a custody and mobility trial.

The court determined the admissibility of out-of-court statements made to an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinician by persons who did not testify at trial.

The court held that such statements are presumptively admissible as original evidence unless formally challenged by a party serving and filing a statement of dispute.

The court distinguished between OCL clinician reports under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act and expert assessor reports under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the legislative framework supports different treatment of hearsay in each context.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion where the Wife sought interim spousal support and exclusive possession, and the Husband brought a cross-motion.

While the Wife achieved modest success on the main motion, the court found both parties' litigation conduct to be unreasonable, characterized by a refusal to make concessions and an overly combative approach.

Despite both parties seeking substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded no costs, emphasizing the need to correct their behaviour and noting the disproportionate costs incurred relative to the modest success and lack of advancement in the overall application.

A motion by a third party seeking intervenor status, amicus curiae status, or party status in a child protection proceeding.

The movant, a religious leader and founder of a public accountability organization, sought to intervene on behalf of the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant amicus curiae status to public interest groups, failure to meet the criteria for intervention, and concerns about delay and prejudice to the child.

Maternal grandparents sought to adopt their eighteen-year-old grandson, who had been in their custody since infancy pursuant to a 1996 custody order.

The court considered the application under subsection 146(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which permits adoption of adults.

The court held that while the grandparents' psychological and emotional reasons for adoption were relevant, the applicant's informed consent was mandatory under subsections 137(6) and 137(7) of the Act.

The court found no evidence in the record of the applicant's views, preferences, understanding, or consent to the adoption.

The application was adjourned pending the applicant's provision of sworn evidence of informed consent.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support and access arrangements.

The applicant mother was substantially successful at trial, obtaining an order requiring the respondent father to continue paying $188.00 per month in child support with arrears fixed at $7,841.65.

The father's position on child support was unreasonable, and he rejected a reasonable settlement offer that matched the final court order.

The court awarded costs of $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $150.00 per month, recognizing the father's limited financial resources while sanctioning his unreasonable litigation conduct.

Addendum to a family law judgment clarifying additional terms relating to parenting access, reimbursement of mediation and legal consultation fees, transfer of a motor vehicle, and continuation of benefits coverage.

The court confirmed that access would proceed in accordance with previously agreed Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the respondent for mediation costs and potentially legal consultation fees if undisputed.

The applicant was also directed to transfer his interest in a vehicle to the respondent and to maintain benefit coverage for the children and the respondent until the divorce was finalized.

The applicant father sought to prevent the respondent mother from relocating to the Netherlands with their two young children.

The mother argued she could not find suitable employment in the Hamilton area and had a job offer and family support in the Netherlands.

The court applied the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz, focusing on the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The court found that both parents were highly involved and capable, and that moving the children to the Netherlands would drastically reduce their contact with the father, which was not in their best interests.

The court denied the move to the Netherlands but permitted the mother to seek employment elsewhere in Ontario or Canada, excluding New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

The court also made orders for joint custody, access, child support, and spousal support.

A motion to change a child support order brought by the biological father seeking to reduce his child support obligation retroactively based on his actual income, and to obtain access to his daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to terminate the relationship between the child and father.

The court found that there had been a change in circumstances justifying modification of the original order.

The father's child support obligation was maintained at $188 per month based on imputed income of $23,500, as the court found he was intentionally underemployed.

The court rejected the father's request to reduce or rescind arrears.

Access was granted on a supervised basis with a detailed schedule for gradual expansion over one year, subject to multiple conditions including counselling, drug and alcohol testing, and restrictions on smoking and substance use.

On a family law motion concerning the matrimonial home, the respondent sought an order for immediate partition and sale, while the applicant sought exclusive possession and a delay in listing the property until the end of the school year for the parties’ children.

The court accepted that exclusive possession would remain with the applicant pending sale but found insufficient evidence that selling the home during the school year would cause harm beyond ordinary disruption.

Both parties faced financial pressures and neither could buy out the other’s interest in the property.

Balancing the financial realities and the limited evidence regarding impact on the children, the court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale immediately.

A costs endorsement in a family law matter involving custody and access disputes between biological parents.

The applicant father sought expanded access to the child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother opposed such expansion.

The court addressed costs for multiple motions heard on July 11, 2011, August 31, 2011, January 26, 2012, and April 3, 2012.

The mother was successful in opposing the father's motion for overnight access on January 26, 2012, and was awarded costs.

The court also addressed a wasted attendance on April 3, 2012, when the mother was unprepared to proceed with her disclosure motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his access to his young child to include overnight and full weekend access, based on recommendations from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the expansion pending trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the case did not fall into the rare or exceptional category warranting reliance on an assessor's recommendations before trial.

The court found significant deficiencies in the investigation and credibility concerns regarding the assessor's findings, and determined that the status quo should be maintained pending full trial.