Barbara Angela Barnett

This case involved multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements and decision-making for four children following the death of their mother/sister.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making for one child and increased parenting time/reunification therapy for two others.

The respondents, including the great-grandmother and an extended family member, sought various parenting and decision-making orders.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a week-on-week-off parenting schedule for the youngest child between the grandmother and great-grandmother.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were granted to the extended family member for the two older children, respecting their views.

The court dismissed the request for reunification therapy, finding it not beneficial given the children's wishes and family dysfunction.

The Children's Aid Society's handling of the case was also criticized for failing to adequately address the children's emotional needs and views.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for undertakings and refusals in a family law proceeding.

The court noted significant non-compliance by both parties with procedural rules, including deficiencies in undertakings charts, improper CaseLines uploads, and failure to provide draft orders.

The respondent also attempted to file a late affidavit, which was refused.

The court ordered the respondent to produce specific documents and information within strict deadlines, including income and employment details, and warned that failure to comply would preclude reliance on such documentation at trial.

The applicant's motion was largely successful, and their draft order was to issue, with costs to be determined.

This endorsement addresses procedural complexities in a family law application.

The applicant mother sought determination of parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues following a 14-year unmarried relationship.

The respondent father had initiated three civil actions related to property and had served an Answer in the family court application but failed to file it, preventing a Case Conference.

The father sought an adjournment, citing work commitments and a "jurisdictional" argument that the family claims should await resolution of the civil property actions.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding no logical connection between the civil property actions and the family law claims for support and parenting.

This is a costs endorsement following an 11-day family law trial.

The Applicant, M.M., sought full indemnity costs of $93,856.77 against the Respondent, E.M., who was self-represented and did not file submissions.

The court considered the parties' success on various issues, E.M.'s unreasonable behaviour, and her bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including breaches of court orders, threats, and harassment.

While E.M. had partial success on spousal support, M.M. was largely successful on other issues and made several unaccepted offers to settle.

The court found clear examples of E.M.'s bad faith.

Considering all factors, including proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded M.M. costs fixed at $70,000.

The Applicant Father and Respondent Mother were married for over fourteen years and had one child.

An eleven-day trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The Mother exhibited hostile and belligerent behavior, including criminal harassment, which negatively impacted the child.

The court granted sole custody to the Father, with severely restricted and professionally managed access for the Mother, contingent on her addressing mental health issues.

The court also determined child support, awarded the Mother a lump sum spousal support payment, and an equalization payment, while making various post-separation adjustments.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a consent custody order dated July 7, 2016, seeking to extend sole custody to include educational decisions, modify the parenting schedule, and address alleged non-compliance with child tax benefits and daycare costs.

The respondent father initially opposed the motion but later amended his response to argue material change based on ongoing conflict and communication difficulties.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access provisions, as most disputed issues arose during litigation rather than before.

However, the court found that daycare expenses constituted a material change and ordered the father to contribute proportionately to Section 7 daycare costs.

The parties consented to modifications regarding holiday and special occasion scheduling.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for custody of a five-month-old infant child born to unmarried parents.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother also brought competing custody applications.

The court consolidated the proceedings in Brampton, finding that the child was ordinarily resident there.

The court set aside prior without prejudice orders and established a temporary parenting plan providing the father with substantial access to the child, contingent upon the mother residing with the maternal grandmother and receiving treatment for mental health concerns.

The court emphasized the presumption favoring parental custody while recognizing the need for immediate protection of the child during the mother's mental health crisis.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the return of two children to Brampton, Ontario, and establishing an interim parenting schedule pending trial.

The respondent father had relocated the children from Brampton to Scarborough without prior notice to involved parties, leading to a dispute regarding the children’s interim residence and schooling.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court declined to order the children returned to Brampton, emphasizing the instability of the evidence on the motion record and the fact that the children had been living with the father since December 2012.

The court granted the father interim custody for the limited purpose of making school registration decisions and ordered substantial access for the mother.

The applicant’s request for security for costs under Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules was dismissed.