Family and Matrimonial Law

The Respondent father successfully brought a motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Respondent father, finding that while the Applicant mother's resistance to deferring the interim move was ill-advised, her conduct did not rise to the level of "egregious or reprehensible" to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $1,500, considering proportionality and reasonableness, and noting that the Respondent father's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements for full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The proposed applicant, Mr. Malinowski, sought an urgent motion regarding the necessity of self-isolation before resuming scheduled in-person parenting time, without having formally commenced an application.

The court denied the request for an urgent hearing, noting that the practical urgency had dissipated as the proposed respondent, Ms. Malinowska, was prepared to resume the access schedule on the day of the decision.

The court also highlighted the lack of formal pleadings, which prevented a full understanding of the legal positions and potential urgency of the broader issues, including unresolved property matters.

The parties were encouraged to continue efforts to resolve their differences with the assistance of counsel, referencing the evolving jurisprudence on parenting during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for parenting time with his three children, alleging the respondent mother had denied contact since a domestic incident.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting willingness for a week-about arrangement and disputing the father's claims.

The court found the applicant's initial letter misleading and the respondent's letter violated court protocols by exceeding page limits and including privileged information.

The court declined to find present urgency for a motion but scheduled a case conference to assist parties in resolving issues and to determine urgency as an element of case management.

The Respondent brought a motion to cite the Applicant for contempt of prior access orders concerning their 8-year-old daughter, and subsequently moved for directions to set a trial date for the contempt motion and enforce interim orders.

The court noted significant issues with the child's relationship with the Respondent, stemming from the Respondent's comportment, and the child's forceful refusal of contact.

The judge found the Respondent's tone imperious and his credibility reduced, concluding that the child's problems were complex and unlikely to be resolved by a contempt trial, with negligible chances of proving deliberate breach by the Applicant.

The motion for directions was dismissed without costs, and the contempt motion was adjourned for trial, with a recommendation for reconciliation counselling or a motion to change.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to reinstate face-to-face access with his five-year-old child, which the applicant mother had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was "potentially urgent" given the suspension of a long-standing time-sharing arrangement.

The court set a schedule for the filing of responding and reply materials and provided guidance on the general principles for parenting issues during COVID-19, emphasizing cooperation and child-focused problem-solving.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior parenting order, alleging the respondent mother was withholding their child in breach of the order, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the urgent motion, emphasizing the need for child-focused behaviour and adherence to public health guidelines.

The court provided specific directions for the teleconference motion, including strict page limits for submissions and argument times, and deemed the directions an immediately operative order.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte 14B motion seeking access, police enforcement, and make-up visits for his daughter during the COVID-19 emergency period.

The court found insufficient information to assess the urgency, noting the applicant's affidavit lacked details on the child's age, status of proceedings, or existing orders, and that the respondent had not been served.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with directions for proper service and refiling.

The respondent father brought a motion requesting a case conference on parenting issues, which had been previously adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court granted the motion, ordering a one-hour settlement conference restricted to parenting issues, to be held electronically by the Case Management Judge.

Specific directions were given for scheduling, scope, and electronic filing of briefs and offers to settle, with parties advised to consider the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their proposed solutions.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

The parties, Adam and Amanda Rothschild, sought an urgent case conference to resolve disputes arising from their Minutes of Settlement concerning the sale of the matrimonial home.

Key issues included the selection of a listing agent, the listing date, necessary repairs, and the applicant's access to the home, all complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court addressed the interpretation and enforcement of the Minutes of Settlement in light of these unforeseen circumstances.

The applicant mother sought urgent temporary orders, including a restraining order against the respondent father, no access, permission for service by email, and a police enforcement clause, citing a history of domestic violence and a recent assault while she was holding their infant child.

The father was in custody at the time.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter urgent and granted the requested orders on a temporary, without prejudice basis, noting that the father's perspective was not yet known as materials had not been served.

The court set a deadline for the father to file responding materials and outlined next steps for a teleconference if materials were received.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the partial release of funds from the sale of the parties' former matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a lesser release.

The court, considering the parties' financial needs and the presumptive equalization payment, ordered the release of $150,000 to each party, with the father also ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the mother.

The decision emphasized the need for realistic solutions and good faith communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent wife brought an urgent motion seeking a stay of a portion of a final order that directed the removal of a preservation order on the applicant husband's RRSPs, pending an appeal.

The appeal concerned the trial judge's interpretation of s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act regarding an unequal division of property based on unconscionability.

The motion was heard in writing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, the court found that the respondent failed to establish a serious question to be tried, concluding that the trial judge had properly applied the high threshold for unconscionability.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody and a return to the pre-pandemic parenting schedule, alleging the respondent father was withholding the children due to her essential nursing work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent, citing the mother's risk of losing employment and the children's well-being.

The court directed the respondent to file responding materials and scheduled an expedited teleconference hearing, emphasizing the need for both parties' perspectives before a temporary decision.

The Applicant Father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order and custody of the children, alleging abuse by the Respondent Mother.

The Respondent Mother brought a cross-motion to set aside the ex parte orders and for care of the children.

The court found the Applicant's affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding primary caregiving, abuse allegations, and the children's habitual residence.

The court set aside the ex parte orders, granted temporary primary residence to the Respondent Mother in Scarborough, and dismissed the Applicant's request for a restraining order, finding no credible evidence of abuse or reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

The applicant father sought urgent temporary sole custody of three children and an order for the return of one child, A.R.L.D., who the respondent mother unilaterally removed from the jurisdiction during a COVID-19 self-quarantine period.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was urgent due to concerns for the child's well-being and the need for police assistance, referring it for a full motion hearing and outlining procedural directions for service and future proceedings.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the reinstatement of parenting time arrangements, alleging the respondent mother was denying access due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and determined that the motion was not urgent or an emergency under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding suspended court operations.

The court clarified that "urgent and emergency matters" in family law, particularly concerning the well-being of a child, were intended to mirror the language of the Hague Convention regarding wrongful removal or retention, and did not apply to general parenting time disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter cooperatively.

This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case involving fraternal twins born prematurely in 2016.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel sought a finding that the children were in need of protection under section 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and requested extended care (crown wardship) with no access for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care.

The court found that the children tested positive for cocaine at birth, the mother had unresolved substance abuse issues, mental health management concerns, and domestic violence issues in her relationships.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection and placing them in extended care of the Society, while granting supervised access to the mother.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for two children following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought custody, retroactive child support from January 2014, and permission to travel with the children outside Canada.

The father sought joint custody and offered to pay support based on declared income of $12,000 annually.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with consultation requirements for major decisions, established an access schedule for the younger child with the father, and determined that the father's guideline income included non-taxable OSAP grants, resulting in significantly higher imputed income than claimed.

Retroactive support was ordered from November 2015 with arrears payable at $100 monthly.

A child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act where the society sought extended society care with no access, and the respondent mother sought return of the child with supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues (severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation), ongoing substance abuse (crystal methamphetamine and marijuana), inability to follow professional direction, and lack of reliable family support.

The court determined the child was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and made an order for extended society care without access, with the foster parents approved for adoption.