Ayesha Hussain

This case concerns a motion to change a final order regarding parenting issues, including relocation, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The Applicant mother sought to relocate the child's primary residence from Ontario to West Virginia, USA, where she had moved.

The Respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original order and applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors under the Divorce Act and the Gordon v. Goertz framework.

The court denied the Applicant's request to relocate, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in Ontario with the Respondent.

The Respondent was granted sole decision-making authority, and no ongoing or retroactive child support was ordered, with the Applicant bearing travel costs for her parenting time.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of a child, O.C-J., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a temporary supervision order placing the child with the mother C.C-J., a position supported by C.C-J. herself, the child's aunt, and the child's counsel.

The other mother, S.C-J., sought placement with the aunt.

The court found that returning the child to S.C-J.'s care posed a risk of harm, given the child's expressed desire not to return and suicidal ideation.

The court determined that placing the child with C.C-J. under supervision was the least intrusive and most appropriate option, aligning with the child's wishes and mitigating identified risks, despite historical mental health concerns for C.C-J. and alienation fears raised by S.C-J.

This was a family law trial addressing parenting issues for a 9-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the father's history of domestic violence.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the mother's parental alienation and mental health issues.

The court found a pattern of physical and psychological abuse by the father, witnessed by the child, and that the mother's actions, while at times interfering, were largely a result of this trauma, not parental alienation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, ordered both parents to engage in counselling, and mandated reunification therapy for the child and father, with costs shared 25% mother and 75% father.

This trial determined retroactive and ongoing child support obligations.

The court established the separation date as July 2019 and set the presumptive date for child support at December 11, 2019, declining earlier retroactivity due to the payor's significant pre-application contributions.

Income was imputed to the payor for ongoing support, acknowledging that pending criminal charges (later acquitted) were a valid, non-self-induced barrier to employment during a specific period.

Arrears were calculated based on CERB income, and ongoing support was ordered based on a reasonable imputed income post-acquittal.

The father brought a second motion to change parenting time, seeking increased time, changes to communication methods, and transfer locations.

The mother sought dismissal.

The court first addressed whether a material change in circumstances had occurred, finding that the termination of a restraining order and alleged visit cancellations by the mother did not constitute a material change.

Despite this, the court proceeded to analyze the child's best interests, giving significant weight to the child's expressed views and preferences from a Voice of the Child report, which indicated the child's stress from ongoing litigation and desire for the current schedule with flexibility.

The court dismissed the father's motion to change, maintaining the existing parenting order with minor amendments to allow for flexibility and direct communication between the child and either parent.

The applicant mother sought costs for her successful motion for temporary parenting orders.

The respondent father failed to comply with court timelines for costs submissions and improperly sought his own costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the underlying motion, despite some divided success on parenting time, and that the father's conduct was unreasonable, increasing the mother's costs.

The court awarded the mother $2,000 in costs, payable in installments, considering the father's limited means.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and a structured parenting time schedule with conditions for the respondent father regarding their four-year-old child.

The respondent father opposed, seeking equal parenting time and a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, citing high conflict and concerns over the father's parenting judgment.

A gradually increasing parenting time schedule was ordered for the father, subject to specific conditions.

The father's request for an Office of the Children's Lawyer referral was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following temporary motions for custody of and parenting time with a five-year-old child and for child support.

The mother was granted temporary custody and child support, while the father obtained graduated unsupervised parenting time with supervised exchanges at his expense.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue (custody) and awarded her costs, but reduced the amount from her claim of $3,718.83 to $1,500 to account for the father's limited means and the divided success on parenting time.

Costs were ordered payable at $100 per month starting April 1, 2021.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change a parenting order.

The respondent (father) successfully obtained overnight parenting time with the parties' six-year-old child, whereas the applicant (mother) had sought supervised parenting time only.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent, fixing the amount at $1,307.27 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly installments of $100 commencing January 1, 2021.

The father brought a motion to change the parenting time terms in a final order dated March 27, 2017, seeking overnight access and holiday time with the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and subsequently resiled from temporary minutes of settlement that had been executed on August 11, 2020, which provided for overnight parenting time.

The court found that there had been material changes in circumstances, including the father's consistent exercise of parenting time, his improved parenting skills, the child's aging, and the mother's undue restrictions on access.

The court granted the father's motion, implementing a graduated overnight parenting schedule commencing November 7, 2020, with expansion to full weekends beginning February 12, 2021, and holiday time including Christmas and Easter.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for parenting orders regarding the parties' three children following a separation involving allegations of physical violence.

The mother, who wished to return to Pakistan, surrendered her and the children's passports to her lawyer.

Based on the mother's unchallenged evidence, the court granted the requested relief, deemed the children habitually resident in Ontario, prohibited their removal from the province, and adjourned the matter to a case conference.

This is a costs decision following a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for three children.

The court ordered on June 5, 2020 that the applicant (mother) have temporary custody of the children with defined parenting time for the respondent (father).

The mother sought costs of $3,390 while the father requested costs be limited to $1,200.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the mother, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2020, taking into account the father's limited financial circumstances and his unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.

The mother and father, parents of three children (ages 9, 7, and 4), brought competing motions for temporary custody and parenting time.

The father had retained the children following an oral agreement to rotate them during the COVID-19 pandemic and refused to return them unless the mother signed a separation agreement.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver prior to the pandemic, that an oral agreement existed to share parenting time during the pandemic, and that the father's conduct in breaching the agreement and coercing the mother constituted controlling and coercive behavior.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and ordered the father to have parenting time on alternate weekends commencing June 19, 2020, with a warning that further enforcement proceedings could result in more drastic remedial measures.

The court dismissed the respondent father's claim for access to the parties' six-year-old child and his motion to set aside or change a restraining order.

The applicant mother sought costs of $16,196.29, while the father requested costs be limited to $1,000.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother in the amount of $8,400, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing September 1, 2019.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a restraining order made on June 6, 2017, which prohibited him from having any contact with the applicant mother and their six-year-old child.

The father sought to set aside the restraining order, or alternatively, to terminate it or change it to permit supervised access to the child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought its dismissal.

The court dismissed the father's motion to set aside the restraining order, finding he did not move promptly and lacked a satisfactory excuse for his non-attendance at the original hearing.

The court also found no material change in circumstances warranting termination of the restraining order.

Finally, the court determined that access was not in the child's best interests at that time, given the father's history of severe domestic violence toward the mother, lack of meaningful change, dishonesty, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed the access claim but left open the possibility of future applications if the father demonstrated sustained constructive change.