Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's decision to apprehend her 18-month-old child due to malnourishment concerns.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were before the Court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns about not being heard and not receiving reasons were inextricably linked to the apprehension and the child's risk of harm, which were squarely before the Court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that workers acted improperly by supporting his 16-year-old daughter's decision to leave home and reside with her boyfriend's family.

The Applicant claimed he was denied the opportunity to be heard and was not provided reasons for the workers' decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 16-year-old daughter had voluntarily withdrawn from parental control and was receiving services separate and distinct from any services provided to the Applicant.

Consequently, the Applicant was not a service recipient with respect to the daughter's interactions with the workers and had no right to be heard or receive information about those services without the daughter's consent.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child.

The mother raised numerous issues, including allegations of abuse by the father, the child's behaviour at school, the need for trauma counselling, and the requirement for supervised access.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including testimony from the mother and the society's child protection worker, as well as transcripts of access conferences.

The Board found that the society had met its obligation to hear the mother's concerns in a timely manner and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions, even though the mother disagreed with the society's conclusions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints of abuse while her children were in their father's care, and sought the expungement of certain records.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not first submitted a formal complaint to the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by the legislation.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the contents of child protection records, which falls under the purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests, including decisions not to conduct a further investigation, not to address his requests for accommodation for his hearing loss, and not to provide an action plan.

Following a hearing, the Board dismissed the complaints regarding the investigation and the consideration of a family court order, finding that sufficient reasons were provided or no such decisions were made.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding why it did not address the applicant's requests for accommodation prior to November 2018 and why a written action plan was not provided.

The respondent was ordered to provide written responses to these specific questions.

A child protection application brought by Brant Family and Children's Services seeking Crown wardship without access for two young Indigenous children was resolved by consent order.

The children's mother sought their return to her care subject to supervision.

The court approved a staggered reintegration plan whereby the younger child would immediately return to the mother's care under supervision for twelve months, and the older child would be reintegrated over a two-month period.

The central legal issue concerned the interpretation of section 70 of the Child and Family Services Act, which imposes time limits on society wardship.

The court held that the statutory time limits should be viewed as presumptive ceilings rather than hard caps, allowing for extensions consistent with the child's best interests.

Two sets of applicants commenced separate applications under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the adoption refusal of the same child.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered that the applications be joined and proceed together to a hearing.

The Board also issued a confidentiality order prohibiting the disclosure of any Board documents or information outside of the proceedings.

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions to keep her file open and refuse her a copy of a video recording.

The Board found that the Society did not engage in meaningful discussion with the Applicant regarding her concerns that referrals were malicious, nor did it provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and reasons to the Applicant.

The Applicant, a youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement at a group home.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and to a placement that better addressed her needs and cultural heritage.

The Society argued the group home was necessary due to the Applicant's sexualized behaviour and trauma.

The Board found that the group home was not an appropriate placement, as it failed to meet the Applicant's clinical, cultural, and emotional needs, and ordered her discharged to a less restrictive treatment foster home closer to her community.

In a family law proceeding involving divorce, custody, child support, and property equalization, the applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent’s affidavit and revise the timetable for a pending summary judgment motion.

The respondent, self‑represented and recently employed, requested an adjournment on the basis that she could not attend the scheduled hearing.

The court considered the absence of prejudice to the applicant and the respondent’s circumstances, including new employment and recent illness.

The motion was adjourned with directions requiring the respondent to deliver updated financial disclosure and medical documentation if illness prevented attendance.

Costs were reserved to the next hearing date.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior child support order based on a material increase in the respondent’s income.

The respondent argued that payment of the full guideline amount would cause undue hardship because he had a legal obligation to support three additional children from a subsequent relationship.

The court considered the undue hardship provisions under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and balanced the competing household obligations.

While the court accepted that full guideline support would create undue hardship, it found an increase was still warranted.

The prior order was varied to require increased monthly child support plus a contribution toward extraordinary expenses.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and property-related issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

Although the applicant obtained a result exceeding the respondent’s final settlement offer, her own settlement offers were found unreasonable and several significant issues at trial were decided against her.

The court also considered disclosure difficulties caused by the respondent and the respondent’s submission of an altered contract, which increased mistrust and litigation complexity.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity costs but awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

Pre-trial costs were allowed as claimed, while trial costs were reduced to reflect the applicant’s limited success on certain issues.

Divorce trial addressing child support for an adult disabled child receiving ODSP benefits, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and post‑separation financial adjustments.

The payor argued that ODSP benefits should eliminate or reduce child support and proposed contributing to an RDSP instead.

The court rejected that position, holding that ODSP benefits do not displace the presumptive child support obligation under the Federal Child Support Guidelines for a disabled adult child who remains a “child of the marriage.” The court imputed part‑time income to the caregiving spouse and fixed mid‑range spousal support after considering the child support obligation and the parties’ respective incomes.

Equalization and multiple post‑separation adjustments were determined, including reimbursement relating to a breach‑of‑trust judgment, company‑paid personal expenses, and other financial adjustments.

Following a family law motion, both parties sought costs.

The court considered that the respondent was largely successful on the primary contested issue concerning the continued involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, as the applicant’s request to remove or replace that office was rejected.

However, the applicant had made a reasonable offer to settle addressing several issues that were ultimately resolved without court determination, while the respondent made no offer.

Balancing these factors under the Family Law Rules and the policy encouraging settlement offers, the court determined that neither party should receive costs.

The decision reflects the discretionary balancing of litigation success against settlement conduct in family proceedings.

Following a successful motion setting aside a prior contempt order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of approximately $12,959.66.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the matter concerned setting aside a contempt finding and the respondent was required to attend to assist the court, or alternatively that the bill was disproportionate.

The court held that the applicant was completely successful and that the respondent could have consented or taken a non-opposition position to avoid the hearing.

Applying modern costs principles emphasizing partial indemnification, encouragement of settlement, and discouragement of unnecessary litigation, the court found full indemnity costs unwarranted but awarded partial costs.

Costs of $5,500 all inclusive were ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The father brought a motion to vary an interim custody and access order to increase parenting time based on recommendations contained in an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report suggesting no more than four days between parenting periods.

The mother opposed the change and sought a stay of the motion due to the father’s failure to pay prior costs orders and requested restrictions on future motions.

The court held that while non-payment of costs could justify a stay in financial matters, it would still consider the motion because children’s best interests were engaged.

The court declined to vary the interim access arrangement, finding the assessment recommendations vague, untested by cross-examination, and insufficient to justify altering a recently established status quo pending trial.

The father’s motion was dismissed, the mother’s stay motion was dismissed, and the request to require leave for future motions was adjourned.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent failed to comply with a prior disclosure order requiring an Affidavit of Documents.

The court reviewed the principles governing civil contempt under the Family Law Rules, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a clear and unambiguous order and intentional breach.

The evidence established that the respondent knowingly failed to comply with the prior order and appeared to be seeking a tactical litigation advantage through non-compliance.

Although the respondent had substantially complied by the time of the hearing, the court found contempt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given that the contempt had effectively been purged by the hearing date, the court determined that the finding of contempt itself was a sufficient penalty.

In a high‑conflict custody, access, and child support proceeding, the responding parent brought a motion to strike the other party’s application and materials due to repeated failures to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, costs, and child support.

The court confirmed that Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permits sanctions such as striking pleadings for non‑compliance but emphasized that the remedy must be used sparingly, particularly where the best interests of a child are engaged.

Given that custody and parenting issues required a full evidentiary record, striking the pleadings would risk impairing the court’s ability to determine the child’s best interests.

Instead, the court imposed financial consequences, fixed arrears and costs, ordered payment efforts and questioning on financial disclosure, and maintained restrictions on further motions without leave.

In a contested divorce trial, the court determined parenting arrangements, equalization of net family property, and spousal and child support.

The parties shared joint custody of their child on a week-about schedule but disputed travel protocols, passport control, income for support purposes, and the valuation of several assets.

The respondent claimed large family loans evidenced by promissory notes to reduce his net family property; the court rejected the claim, finding the evidence unreliable and concluding the alleged debts were not proven.

The court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes exceeded his declared income and ordered ongoing spousal support and set-off child support.

The respondent was also ordered to pay a substantial equalization payment and maintain life insurance securing his support obligations.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support obligations under a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to reduce his support obligations following job loss in March 2011.

The respondent initially agreed to a temporary reduction but ultimately the parties settled with the applicant increasing his support obligation.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a full recovery basis, finding that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to disclose that he had obtained new employment at the end of December 2011, contrary to a court order requiring him to advise forthwith of any employment.

This non-disclosure prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily and caused the respondent to incur additional legal expenses.