Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, alleging the respondent was the father of her child and was hiding his income.

The respondent, who was in Canada on a visitor's visa and facing criminal charges related to the conception, sought an adjournment, disputing paternity and claiming impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the adjournment request but found the motion for interim support premature.

The court ordered the parties to complete a paternity test and exchange financial disclosure before attending an urgent case conference.

The parties, who were separated and unable to agree on their three-year-old child's kindergarten enrollment, brought a motion to determine the issue.

The applicant father sought enrollment at Thornhill Nursery School and Kindergarten, while the respondent mother sought enrollment at Associated Hebrew Schools.

The court determined that attending Associated Hebrew Schools was in the child's best interests, as it provided both academic and religious instruction during the week, avoiding the need for supplemental weekend schooling that would interfere with parenting time.

The court ordered the child to attend Associated Hebrew Schools and directed the parties to share the tuition costs proportionate to their incomes.

The applicant brought motions to enforce a final consent order requiring the respondent to pay her $300,000, seeking partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and for reunification therapy with their children.

The respondent had failed to make the payment and the applicant was left 'couch surfing'.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, defeating a concurrent life interest held by the respondent's mother, with compensation to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court also ordered the children to attend reunification therapy at the respondent's expense, noting the children had been inappropriately exposed to the litigation.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order.

The applicant mother responded and sought retroactive variation of child support and section 7 expenses for their two children.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court found the father failed to diligently adjust support to reflect his increased income and ordered retroactive variation effective April 2015.

The court declined to impute income to the father, calculating arrears based on the parties' tax assessments.

The father was ordered to pay $35,872.70 in total arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The appellant father appealed a costs order made following a summary judgment motion that dismissed the respondent mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing extraordinary child expenses.

The mother sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding her financial inability to pay costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it incomplete and not determinative.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding there was divided success and in failing to apply the presumptive costs consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the father's better offers to settle.

The appeal was allowed and costs of the summary judgment motion were fixed at $16,126.29 in favour of the father.

Following a successful motion for an interim parenting schedule, the applicant father sought partial indemnity costs of $7,771.87.

The respondent mother argued for a significant reduction or no costs due to her limited financial means.

The court considered the father's unaccepted offer to settle, the mother's financial situation, and the principles of fair and reasonable costs.

The mother was ordered to pay costs of $4,000, payable in monthly installments of $40.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order placing nine children in the mother's care under supervision, and for the father's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The mother and father consented to the placement with the mother.

The father opposed supervised access for the younger children, while the children, through their counsel, requested that all access be supervised and occur with all siblings present due to allegations of physical and verbal abuse.

The court granted the temporary order, placing the children with the mother and ordering that the father's access be supervised at the Society's discretion, with the condition that at least two of the three eldest children be present during visits.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order allowing her to relocate from Ottawa to New Brunswick with the parties' 8-year-old child and for sole interim custody.

The mother, who had been the child's sole caregiver since separation, sought to move to be closer to her extended family for support while working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed the motion, alleging alienation.

The court applied the mobility framework and found it was in the child's best interests to permit the temporary relocation, noting the mother's historical role as primary caregiver, the father's minimal involvement, and the benefits of family support and lower COVID-19 risks in New Brunswick.

The Children's Aid Society appealed an order granting a mother access to her child, who had been placed in extended society care.

The Society argued the trial judge erred in his application of the best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, specifically regarding whether access would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the new, broader best-interests approach to access and made findings grounded in the evidence.

A motion by the Society to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The parties resolved ongoing child support on consent but disputed retroactive child support for 2018.

The applicant argued his 2018 income should not include a mandatory pension payout, while the respondent's income should be averaged due to her sick leave.

The court excluded the portion of the pension payout reinvested into an RRSP but included the remainder, finding the applicant failed to establish unfairness.

The court used the respondent's actual 2018 income and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support based on a set-off of the parties' incomes.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.

The parties were involved in a custody dispute over their five-year-old daughter.

The mother brought a motion for the return of the child after the father overheld her following an access visit, while the father brought a motion for temporary custody within his underlying motion to change.

The father alleged that the mother's new partner excessively disciplined the child and treated her poorly.

The court found that the child was treated like a stepchild in her own home and that the new partner's discipline was excessive.

The court granted temporary joint custody, with the child's principal residence to be with the father.

The respondent father brought a motion for the immediate pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant mother opposed the sale and sought an order for the father to cooperate in renewing the mortgage, arguing that their 19-year-old child with autism and intellectual disabilities required the stability of the home and its proximity to specialized school programs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that a pre-trial sale would irreparably prejudice the mother's claim for exclusive possession at trial and negatively impact the vulnerable child.

The court granted the mother's request, ordering the father to cooperate in refinancing the matrimonial home.

Following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support where success was divided, the father sought partial indemnity costs of $32,285.16.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success and the father's conduct.

The court found the father was the more successful party overall, particularly on the primary issues of parenting time and decision-making authority.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' behaviour, time spent, and proportionality, the court ordered the mother to pay the father fixed costs of $18,000.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing four children in its temporary care and custody following an incident where the mother allowed unapproved individuals into the home, breaching a previous supervision order.

The parents sought the return of the children under a new supervision order.

The court found that while the mother breached the order by allowing unapproved visitors, the parents had otherwise acted responsibly and were addressing the children's needs.

The court ordered that all four children be returned to the temporary care and custody of the parents, subject to strict conditions under a supervision order.

Following a motion regarding parenting time where the father was largely successful, he sought costs of $13,229.48.

The mother argued costs should be fixed at $4,500.

The court found the father was more successful and had made an offer to settle, whereas the mother had not.

However, the court found the father's counsel's docketed hours excessive.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $5,200 to the father.

The mother brought an application for custody and corollary relief in Ontario.

The father, residing in Pakistan, brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that Pakistani courts had already exercised jurisdiction, and sought the return of the children to Pakistan.

The court found that while the children were not habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the application, the requirements of s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act were met.

The court assumed jurisdiction, noting the children's real and substantial connection to Ontario and the balance of convenience favouring Ontario.

The father's motion was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's motion to change his access from supervised to unsupervised.

A previous court order set out numerous preconditions the father had to meet before bringing such a motion, including completing parenting and anger management programs.

The court found that the father had not strictly complied with several of these preconditions.

As a result, the father's motion to change was stayed and his other procedural motions were dismissed.

Following a successful Hague Convention application ordering the return of two children to Nevada, the applicant father sought costs for the Ontario proceedings and related expenses.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith by concealing the children's whereabouts and deceiving the court about their passports.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $6,240 for the bad faith conduct and an additional $30,000 for the balance of the proceedings, deferring payment of the latter amount to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and pursue business plans.