4 total
Costs awarded against father who abandoned parenting claim; not payable directly to Legal Aid.
Following the striking of the respondent father's parenting time claim due to repeated failure to complete a court-ordered supervised access intake process, the court addressed costs.
The mother, represented through Legal Aid Ontario, sought costs of $6,321 payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario.
The father proposed $300.
The court found the father acted unreasonably by abandoning his claim and failing to comply with multiple court orders, though the bad faith threshold was not met.
Applying the factors under subrule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules and accounting for the father's limited means through a payment schedule, the court awarded costs of $3,955 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $100 per month.
The court declined to make costs payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario, holding that costs are payable to the successful party and the court should not involve itself in the retainer arrangement between a litigant and legal aid.
Child support was reduced and adult-child support terminated after retirement and changed circumstances.
On a motion to change, the moving party sought termination or reduction of child support based on retirement and a substantial drop in income to CPP and OAS benefits.
The court found a material change in circumstances and varied support retroactively to reflect guideline support on the reduced income.
The court held that one adult child ceased to be entitled to support upon leaving university and that the other ceased to be entitled upon not pursuing further full-time education after high school.
The evidence of an Autism Level 1 diagnosis did not establish inability to withdraw from parental charge within s. 31 of the Family Law Act.
The motion was granted in part and no costs were ordered.
The court granted a plaintiff leave to continue its action despite its inadvertent failure to register its business name.
The plaintiff, 1080977 Ontario Inc. operating as Stevans Sales and Marketing, sought leave to continue its action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, despite having operated for 30 years without registering its business name under the Business Names Act.
The defendants opposed, arguing the failure to register was not inadvertent and that they were misled.
The court granted leave, finding the failure to register was inadvertent, there was no evidence the public was deceived, and the plaintiff had since registered the name.
The court also noted a residual discretion to grant leave to prevent an unfair outcome, emphasizing that denying leave would be a disproportionate punishment for a technical breach, especially given the underlying dispute was about unpaid invoices for goods and services received.
Custody awarded to mother; court rejects father’s motion to change custody.
The applicant brought a motion to change prior custody and support orders seeking custody of two children, retroactive and prospective child support, and delivery of the children’s documentation.
The respondent opposed the motion and sought custody of the same children.
After reviewing extensive evidence, including credibility assessments, the court found the respondent to be a credible and responsible parent and expressed significant concerns about the applicant’s parenting abilities, mental health disclosure, and litigation conduct.
The court concluded that granting custody to the applicant would not be in the children’s best interests and awarded custody of the two children to the respondent.
The court also determined various historical child support obligations and section 7 expense allocations, resulting in a net payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.
