Barry M. Tobin

The applicant father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children and to rescind any arrears.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing that the younger child remained a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act due to various disabilities preventing him from withdrawing from her charge.

The court found that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of the alleged disabilities and noted the child had successfully obtained employment and Employment Insurance benefits.

The court terminated child support for both children, recalculated the amounts owed based on the father's income, and fixed the arrears at $1,370.

The parties separated in 2011 after 25 years of marriage.

The husband sought a divorce, an unequal division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, half of the funds allegedly withdrawn by the wife from a joint account, half of an RESP, and reimbursement for junk removal costs.

The court granted the divorce and ordered an equal division of the home sale proceeds, finding no basis for an unequal division.

The husband's claims regarding the joint account and RESP were dismissed, as the RESP was deemed a trust for the child.

The wife was ordered to reimburse the husband for half the junk removal costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion requesting the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer due to ongoing high conflict between the parties regarding parenting issues and its alleged adverse effect on their child.

The applicant father opposed this request.

The court, considering the child's best interests and the conflicting evidence on the child's well-being, granted the mother's motion, finding that a s. 112 investigation and report by the Children's Lawyer would assist the court and parties without causing undue delay.

This endorsement addresses costs following motions for parenting orders, including decision-making responsibility for a child's Covid-19 vaccination and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother was largely successful on the underlying motions, having been granted primary care, decision-making responsibility for the Covid-19 vaccination, and permission to move from the matrimonial home with the children.

The mother sought $5,000 in costs, while the father requested each party bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was more successful and acted reasonably, and awarded her $3,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid by the father.

The court also confirmed that a costs order can be made even if the underlying judgment is subject to appeal.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions concerning decision-making responsibility for their children, specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccination, parenting time, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for the children's COVID-19 vaccination, finding it to be in the children's best interests based on public health guidance.

The mother was also granted primary care of the children and permission to move from the matrimonial home with the children.

The father's parenting time was restricted with conditions related to COVID-19 testing and exposure.

Both parties' claims for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home were dismissed, with a temporary arrangement allowing the mother and children to move out while the father remained responsible for home expenses.

The father brought a contempt motion and a motion to change a final parenting order after the mother withheld his parenting time for an extended period.

The mother withheld the child following two weekends where the child returned with severe diaper rash, leading to a child protection investigation that verified neglect by the father.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the clear terms of the order, she did not act with contumacious intent but out of a legitimate concern for the child.

The court exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than find the mother in contempt.

The father's motion to change the order to add make-up time and a police enforcement clause was dismissed as not being in the child's best interests.

Following an eight-day family law trial where the mother was the more successful party, the court determined issues of interest and costs.

The parties consented to pre-judgment interest at 1.8% and post-judgment interest at 2%.

The mother sought costs of approximately $188,000 on a full indemnity basis, citing the father's unreasonable behaviour and her offers to settle.

The court found both parties engaged in some unreasonable behaviour and that the mother's offers did not trigger the cost consequences of Rule 18.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable by the father at $55,000.

The parties separated after a short marriage and cohabitation of 45 months.

The father sought shared decision-making responsibility and a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making and a specific parenting schedule, citing a history of family violence.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence through a pattern of coercive control and inability to manage anger, making shared decision-making inappropriate.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility and the children's primary residence, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, lump sum spousal support of $2,750, and the full presumptive equalization payment of $211,000, finding that the amount was not unconscionable despite the short cohabitation.

Following a trial where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Winnipeg, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought $33,500, while the father argued costs should be fixed at $1,000 due to divided success and his limited ability to pay as an ODSP recipient.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and acted reasonably.

Taking into account the father's financial circumstances and the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000, payable in monthly installments of $300.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking permission to relocate the parties' ten-year-old child from London, Ontario to Winnipeg, Manitoba, where her new husband had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care and decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that the move was in the child's best interests, as the mother had been the primary caregiver for most of the child's life and could provide a stable home.

The court permitted the relocation, ordered extended parenting time for the father during school holidays, and granted joint decision-making responsibility with final decision-making authority to the mother.

The mother applied for sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the father sought joint decision-making.

The parties had a turbulent relationship with a history of conflict and criminal charges.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate effectively made joint decision-making inappropriate, though the mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also imputed a part-time minimum wage income of $18,000 to the unemployed father and ordered him to pay $263 per month in child support, while rescinding his child support arrears.

The applicant moved for a temporary variation of a final parenting order to require that the respondent's parenting time be supervised, while the respondent sought enforcement and make-up parenting time and to strike portions of the evidentiary record.

The court declined to strike the applicant's affidavits and only treated speculative, inflammatory, and irrelevant portions of a non-party affidavit as struck.

Applying the stringent framework for temporary variation of a final parenting order, the court found a material change in circumstances based on previously unknown evidence from the respondent's adult child alleging past sexual and physical abuse.

Given the uncontradicted evidence, the absence of any direct denial by the respondent, and the statutory requirement to prioritize the children's safety, security, and wellbeing, the court ordered supervised parenting time pending further order.

The applicant sought costs of $7,500 following three motions concerning parenting time, school registration, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent requested no order for costs.

The court found divided success but determined the applicant was the more successful party on the core issues.

Considering the parties' behaviour, the importance of the issues, and the time spent, the court ordered the respondent to pay $6,000 in costs to the applicant, payable from his share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant maternal grandmother moved to amend a previous costs order of $85,000 against the respondent father, seeking to apportion 50 percent of the costs to child support.

The father had declared bankruptcy, and costs attributed to child support survive bankruptcy.

The court found it had jurisdiction to apportion costs retroactively.

However, because child support was resolved by consent before trial and was not a contested issue, the court declined to apportion 50 percent as requested.

Instead, considering the time spent and complexity, the court apportioned 10 percent of the costs to child support.

Following two motions regarding the child's residence where the respondent father was substantially successful, the father sought costs of $10,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reserved.

The underlying dispute involved the mother overholding the child due to allegations that the father distributed intimate images of her online without consent.

The court held that if the father is proven to be the perpetrator at trial, his behaviour could be considered unreasonable and affect his entitlement to costs.

Therefore, the court reserved the determination of costs to the trial judge when a full evidentiary record will be available.

The mother withheld the child from the father after the father was charged with distributing intimate images of the mother online.

The father brought a motion for the return of the child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for a temporary variation of the final parenting order to grant her primary care.

The court found the matter urgent but dismissed the mother's motion for a temporary variation, holding that the untested affidavit evidence regarding the father's involvement in the distribution of the images was not sufficiently compelling to establish an immediate risk of harm to the child.

The mother was ordered to return the child to the father's care.

The parties, who share parenting time on a rotating weekly basis, disagreed on which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed a public school near his home, while the respondent mother proposed a French first language Catholic school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering logistics, the parents' ability to assist with homework, and the promotion of the child's religious and linguistic heritage.

The court ordered that the child attend the French Catholic school proposed by the mother, finding it more consonant with the child's best interests.

The Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a four-month-old Indigenous child.

The parents opposed, seeking the child's return under supervision.

The court analyzed whether the provincial child protection legislation conflicted with the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, concluding there was no conflict and the augmented provincial best interests test applied.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected by strict terms of supervision while residing with the maternal great-aunt, the court dismissed the Society's motion and placed the child in the joint care of the parents.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for interim primary care of their three children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year, with significant domestic conflict adversely affecting the children.

The father sought to introduce surreptitious video recordings of the mother; the court admitted three where the mother was aware of the recording but gave them little weight, and excluded a fourth taken without her knowledge.

The court granted the mother interim primary care, finding she had been the primary caregiver and it was in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo.

The court also granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to protect the children from further exposure to conflict, with the implementation date adjourned to allow the father to find alternate accommodations.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the return of the parties' six-year-old child from the respondent father in Nova Scotia to her care in Ontario.

The father had retained the child after a summer visit, citing concerns about the mother's new partner, who had a criminal record and history of substance abuse.

Following a previous interim order requiring evidence of the new partner's rehabilitation, the court reviewed the new evidence, which demonstrated the partner's prosocial behavior, sobriety, and positive relationship with the child.

The court found that the minimal risk of relapse was outweighed by the benefit of returning the child to his primary caregiver and ordered the child returned to the mother's care.