Family and Matrimonial Law

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking orders related to the parties' six-year-old son, including obtaining a report from the Children's Lawyer, mandating communication via AppClose software, the return of the child's birth certificate, cooperation for passport renewal, and permission for international travel.

The applicant father opposed these requests, citing fears of the child not being returned and the impact of travel on their bond.

The court granted all of the respondent's requests, finding the father's fears unsubstantiated, and ordered the father to pay $1000 in costs, noting his self-represented status and lack of bad faith.

This uncontested trial addressed a high-conflict family dispute concerning decision-making and parenting time for a six-year-old child.

The respondent mother had repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the applicant father, withheld the child from him for extended periods, and refused to cooperate with court orders and investigations by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the mother's actions constituted family violence, causing emotional and psychological harm to the child.

Consequently, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence from the mother to the father, granted the father sole decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to pay child support and significant costs due to her unreasonable and intransigent conduct throughout the litigation.

This high-conflict family law trial addressed parenting responsibilities, equalization, and support arrears.

The primary issue was whether parenting authority over the six-year-old child would be shared or vested in one parent.

The court found the applicant engaged in negative gatekeeping and lacked insight into the child's best interests, particularly regarding the child's relationship with the respondent and his new spouse.

The respondent was found to have committed situational family violence but was deemed safe with the child.

The court granted the divorce, vested all parenting authority in the respondent, ordered 50/50 parenting time, and directed the release of matrimonial home funds to the respondent in full satisfaction of equalization and support arrears.

The applicant mother sought to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement, alleging a material change in the respondent father's income due to undeclared cash, improper business deductions, and other sources.

The separation agreement had fixed the father's "estimated" income at $70,000.

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge her onus to prove a material change in the respondent's income for the years 2016-2021, except for a one-time top-up payment for 2020.

The court dismissed the application to change the separation agreement, emphasizing that the starting point for assessing actual income is line 150 of the tax return, and rejecting most of the applicant's claims regarding imputed income from cash, lifestyle, and business deductions.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant successfully obtained an order for in-person schooling for the parties' child, and the remaining issue of residency was subsequently resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant was the successful party regarding the schooling issue and was entitled to some costs.

However, the respondent's conduct was not deemed unreasonable enough to warrant full recovery costs.

The court considered the importance and complexity of the issues and the parties' resolution of the second issue.

The Respondent Father brought two motions: one for extensive disclosure, including solicitor-client communications and forensic audits of email accounts, and another for the removal of the Applicant Mother's counsel due to alleged conflict and misconduct.

The court dismissed most of the Father's disclosure requests, finding them to be fishing expeditions lacking relevance or proportionality, and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court also dismissed the request to remove the Mother's counsel, finding no conflict of interest or sufficient evidence to warrant disqualification.

A limited disclosure order for specific emails between the Mother and a non-party was granted, and a schedule for witness lists and affidavits of documents was set.

This is a costs endorsement following an order of May 25, 2020.

The Applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $3613.74 plus $500 for costs submissions, based on success on the motion.

The Respondent argued for no costs, or that costs be reserved to the trial judge, or offset against child support arrears, and highlighted her limited means.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success and the Respondent's limited means, fixing costs at $3500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 60 days.

The applicant father was found in contempt for failing to return the children after an access visit, despite eventually purging the contempt.

This endorsement addresses the sanction for contempt and the award of costs.

The court imposed a penalty of $252 and awarded full indemnity costs of $3,968.81 to the respondent mother, payable at $200 per month.

The decision emphasized the father's bad faith, misrepresentation of facts, and the negative impact of his actions on the children and the mother's ability to provide for them, outweighing his limited ability to pay due to disability.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing a three-year-old child with the maternal grandfather.

The motion was prompted by serious allegations of sexual abuse against the grandfather and domestic violence.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that placement with the society was in the child's best interests, citing the grandmother's lack of protective capacity, her historical pattern of abandonment, and her failure to disclose known abuse allegations to the society.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to reduce the respondent father's access to their children, specifically to eliminate overnight access, based on disclosures from their two young daughters (ages 4 and 6) regarding the father's alleged sexualized comments.

The father denied the allegations, noting a prior CAS investigation found them unverified.

The court determined the matter was urgent, affecting the children's safety, and granted leave for the motion to proceed despite the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding COVID-19.

The court also ordered the mother to forthwith deliver a recording of one child's statement to the father and made arrangements for cross-examinations to proceed virtually.

The parties' motions concerned child support, daycare expenses, and the removal of belongings following their separation.

The applicant mother sought interim child support and daycare contributions retroactive to the application date.

The respondent father sought to dismiss the application, reduce child support due to alleged undue hardship from supporting his adult children, and have costs owed to him paid directly rather than credited against arrears.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no undue hardship, and ordered child support based on his 2017 income.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of daycare expenses and directed that the costs owed by the mother be applied as a credit against the father's child support and daycare arrears, prioritizing the children's financial needs.

Orders were also made regarding the removal of the father's belongings and increased access to the youngest child.

The respondent father sought a summary decision on whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a new child support order or retroactively vary child support provisions of a Colombian divorce order dated November 7, 2006.

The father argued that since Colombia is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the mother had no recourse in Ontario and must seek relief in Colombia.

The mother argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection and forum of necessity, as she and the child had been permanently resident in Ontario since 2014, and the father had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction regarding custody and access.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine child support, distinguishing the case from precedents involving forum shopping and applying the Muscutt jurisdictional factors.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order and requested costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the applicant's motion and for temporary access to the children.

The court found that the respondent had substantially complied with the disclosure order and that striking pleadings was an extreme remedy not warranted by the facts.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The respondent's cross-motion for temporary access was also dismissed, as the issue of access had previously been ordered to be determined at trial.

No costs were awarded, as neither party was entirely successful on their respective motions.

A family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought joint custody and generous unsupervised access, while the mother sought sole custody with discretionary access to the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, found that access should remain in the mother's discretion, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on his incomplete financial disclosure and evasive financial practices.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order by removing or suspending the requirement for supervised access visits with his children.

The respondent mother consented to the removal of supervision but conditioned it on a variation of the access schedule, bringing a cross-motion for this purpose based on a psychologist's recommendation.

The court granted the father's motion to suspend supervision, finding it in the children's best interests to optimize contact and noting the supervision had become problematic and costly.

However, the court dismissed the mother's cross-motion to vary the access schedule, determining that the psychologist's report was intended for trial and that changing the schedule six weeks before trial would create instability for the children.

The court ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised access and mandated parental consultation with the psychologist for assistance.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child following a two-year termination of contact initiated by the applicant mother in January 2014.

The mother alleged the father had physically abused the child and was consuming alcohol excessively.

The court found that the child's stated fears of contact with the father were a product of the mother's manipulation and alienation.

Despite the child's expressed reluctance, the court ordered unsupervised access, finding that the father posed no risk and that the child required time alone with his father to form an independent view.

The court rejected supervised access as a stepping stone, finding it would perpetuate the mother's control and prevent reconciliation.

A custody and access application concerning a child born in January 2010.

The mother sought sole custody and the right to have the child reside with her in Brampton, while the father sought custody or, alternatively, joint custody with the child residing in Mansfield.

The court granted joint custody with the child residing primarily with the mother in Brampton, determined that the child would attend school in Brampton, established a time-sharing schedule based on the father's rotating shift work, and ordered child support of $475 per month with a credit for travel costs.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $7,880 and requested that the entire sum be enforceable as child support.

The respondent (father) opposed any costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained sole custody and child support based on her position at trial, while the father was unsuccessful on all his requests.

The court awarded costs of $7,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, with $1,800 allocated as enforceable support.

The father was ordered not to initiate further proceedings without proof of payment.