A. Sam Zaslavsky

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final family law order, seeking to set aside prior support-related endorsements, terminate spousal support retroactively, rescind support arrears, and direct the Family Responsibility Office to cease enforcement.

The wife cross-moved to consolidate a related civil action with the family proceedings and to require the husband to post security for costs.

The court found that the husband's discharge from bankruptcy extinguished the equalization payment and pre-bankruptcy cost awards but not the spousal support obligation.

Having regard to the husband's persistent non-compliance with court orders, his failure to provide required disclosure, and his pattern of delay and obstruction, the court dismissed the husband's motion to change support-related relief, consolidated the civil action, and ordered the husband to post $10,000 security for costs.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant, Tirhas Yowhannes, sought sole decision-making responsibility for her two children, the right to travel and obtain government-issued documentation for them without the respondent’s consent, child support based on imputed income, and a divorce.

The court granted all relief sought, finding it in the children’s best interests given the respondent’s absence from their lives and failure to provide support or disclosure.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on minimum wage.

The appellant, Mr. Thomas, appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application for the return of his son, Isaiah, from Toronto to his habitual residence in Balch Springs, Texas.

The application judge had found that the appellant unequivocally acquiesced to the child's relocation.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by reversing the burden of proof, misapplying the standard of "clear and cogent evidence" for acquiescence, and failing to properly consider the appellant's subjective intention.

The Court reiterated that the standard for finding acquiescence is high and that the Hague Convention's objective is the prompt return of abducted children.

The appeal was allowed, and the child was ordered to be returned to Texas.

The Respondent Wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Husband committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by intercepting her private emails and Facebook messages and attaching them to his settlement conference brief.

The Husband argued the communications were not publicly distributed and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court found the Husband intentionally accessed private communications without consent or lawful justification, and that a reasonable person would find this highly offensive.

The court granted the declaration, finding it timely and efficient, but reserved ancillary remedies like damages to the trial judge as they were not sought in the motion.

Following a successful trial where the applicant mother was permitted to relocate to Israel with the child, she sought full recovery costs of $32,945.15.

The respondent father did not respond to the costs request.

The court found that the father's conduct throughout the proceedings, which included ignoring court orders, being unprepared, and exhibiting abusive behaviour during the trial, was wholly unreasonable and rose to the level of bad faith.

The court awarded the mother full recovery costs in the requested amount.

The applicant mother sought to vary a final parenting order to require the respondent father's parenting time be supervised and to permit her to relocate with the child to Israel.

The father had a long history of abusive, threatening, and uncontrollable behaviour, which led to child protection proceedings and the suspension of his unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's conduct caused emotional harm to the child and that he refused to comply with court orders, including a mandated mental health assessment.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate to Israel, finding it in the child's best interests to be shielded from the father's harmful conduct, and ordered that the father's parenting time be strictly supervised.

The respondent sought $4,000 in costs after the applicant withdrew her application for custody and child support following a paternity test that excluded the respondent.

The court, applying Family Law Rules subrule 12(3) and the principle of proportionality and reasonableness, declined to award costs.

The judge found no evidence of bad faith on the applicant's part in commencing the application and placed significant weight on the respondent's unsubstantiated allegations of deception made for the first time in his costs submissions.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support obligations.

The father sought to reduce his monthly support obligation and eliminate support for a period, while the mother sought to maintain the existing order.

The court found divided success based on the positions taken at trial.

The mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the final result but did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it expired before the hearing commenced.

Nevertheless, the offer was considered under subrule 18(16).

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $1,800, payable in monthly instalments of $75 commencing January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for default on support or costs payments.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order requiring him to pay $449 monthly.

He sought to eliminate support payments for October 2016 to March 2017 and reduce monthly support to $227 based on claimed annual income of $25,680.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and alternatively sought income imputation at $37,222.

The father had lost his employment in October 2016 due to his own misconduct (failing to renew his commercial driver's license and concealing this from his employer), resulting in termination for cause.

By trial, he had obtained part-time employment at $17.90 per hour.

The court found a change in circumstances but held that the father's misconduct in causing his job loss warranted a nuanced approach to arrears and prospective support.

The applicant mother moved for summary judgment seeking custody, ongoing and retroactive child support, and a constructive trust interest in the common residence.

The respondent consented to custody but resisted other claims, arguing for a trial.

The court granted summary judgment for custody, set ongoing and retroactive child support based on averaged income, and dismissed the applicant's constructive trust claim as not suitable for summary judgment and disproportionate to pursue at trial.

The court also addressed the respondent's litigation conduct and inconsistent access.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined custody and access arrangements for three children following the separation of unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody with the children residing in Scarborough; the father sought sole custody with the children residing in Oakville.

The court found both parents had significant parenting deficits and were engaged in a toxic relationship.

The mother was actively undermining the children's relationship with their father through alienating conduct, including telling the oldest child the father was not her biological father and changing the middle child's name.

The father had chronic housing and employment instability, having been evicted multiple times.

The court ordered joint custody with a shared residential schedule, with the children residing primarily with the mother during school weeks in Scarborough to ensure housing stability, while maintaining regular contact with the father.

The court emphasized that the mother's alienating conduct must cease or she risked losing custody.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for an order that the children reside with her pending the release of the trial judgment in a custody and access matter.

The respondent father brought a motion to re-open the trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding his changed circumstances following his separation from his common law spouse and his loss of rental accommodation.

The court allowed the father's motion to re-open the trial to hear evidence of his new plan of care for the children, but limited the scope of the evidence to matters arising after the close of trial.

The court reserved its ruling on the mother's motion pending the hearing of the fresh evidence.