Barry M. Tobin

The applicant mother sought a temporary order for primary care of the two children and permission to relocate with them from London to Oakville.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought primary care if the mother relocated.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz* and interim relocation factors from *Plumley v. Plumley*, found that the mother was the primary caregiver and faced significant financial and professional uncertainty in London, while having a rare fellowship opportunity in Toronto.

Despite a genuine issue for trial, the court found compelling circumstances to allow the interim move, noting a strong probability the mother's position would prevail at trial and that a change in primary parent would be disruptive to the young children.

The motion for relocation was granted on an interim basis.

Following a motion regarding parenting time where the father was largely successful, he sought costs of $13,229.48.

The mother argued costs should be fixed at $4,500.

The court found the father was more successful and had made an offer to settle, whereas the mother had not.

However, the court found the father's counsel's docketed hours excessive.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $5,200 to the father.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the return of the child to Peru.

Within this application, both parties brought motions: the father sought expanded in-person access, and the mother requested the appointment of the Children's Lawyer.

The court granted the father supervised in-person access, conditional on his entry into Canada and compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, replacing previous virtual access.

The court also ordered a Voice of the Child Report from the Children's Lawyer, emphasizing it should not delay the main Hague Convention hearing.

The decision considered the child's best interests and allegations of family violence.

The applicant sought a divorce under Part 2 of the Civil Marriage Act, which allows Canadian courts to grant divorces to non-resident spouses whose marriage is not recognized in their state of residence.

The parties, who reside in Hong Kong, separated four months before the application was issued.

The court found the application deficient because the Act requires parties to be separated for at least one year before making the application.

Additionally, the court held that expert evidence is required to prove the foreign law that Hong Kong does not recognize the marriage.

The applicant was granted time to file further evidence before the application would be dismissed.

The respondent father sought to resume access to the child, which the applicant mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 and the child's and mother's underlying health conditions.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the pandemic and health risks but emphasized the presumption of continuing parenting arrangements.

It ordered a modified access schedule, suspending mid-week in-person access in favor of virtual contact and resuming weekend in-person access with strict adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols, facilitated by the father's adult daughter.

The father's request for a police assist order was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for child support for her three children from the applicant father, citing financial hardship due to COVID-19 related job loss.

The court found the matter urgent.

The mother requested support based on the father's historical income of $82,000, while the father argued for a lower income due to current employment restrictions and sought to delay payments to prioritize matrimonial home debts.

The court determined the father's annualized income for child support purposes to be $50,000, based on current earnings and future employment limitations, and ordered him to pay $977 monthly child support commencing May 1, 2020, prioritizing child support over matrimonial home debts.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with an existing access order and a police-assist order, alleging the applicant mother was denying access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The mother argued the father had not taken adequate safety measures.

The court found the matter urgent and, while affirming the importance of existing orders, acknowledged the mother's reasonable safety concerns.

The court ordered the father to meticulously adhere to COVID-19 safety measures and to provide the mother with written updates on the child's activities and precautions after each visit.

The father's request for a police-assist order was dismissed, as it was deemed not in the child's best interests given the circumstances and the mother's non-malicious intent.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary order granting her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and custody of the children.

The parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year.

The moving party alleged that the living arrangement had become unbearable due to tension and verbal abuse.

The court found that while there was tension and stress in the home, it did not rise to the level of warranting the dramatic and highly prejudicial effect of excluding the responding party from the home at this time.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a trial on a motion to change where the applicant was awarded spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $27,000 in costs, while the self-represented respondent made no submissions.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and acted reasonably, whereas the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs, but declined her request to make the costs payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario.

This endorsement addresses multiple cross-motions following a prior order by Price J. The respondent sought a contempt order against the applicant for failing to sell her interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a stay of the sale provision, lifting of a stay on equalization payment enforcement, dismissal of the respondent's Small Claims Court action, directions on communication, permission for email service, and a restriction on the respondent initiating further proceedings.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, granted the stay of the sale provision, and granted the communication and email service requests.

It dismissed the request to lift the stay on equalization payment and to dismiss the Small Claims Court action due to lack of jurisdiction.

The request to restrict further proceedings was also dismissed.

The issue of household contents was referred back to Price J.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2011 consent order that provided for time-limited spousal support, arguing that her deteriorating physical and mental health constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the applicant's severe health issues, including PTSD and schizoaffective disorder, prevented her from achieving self-sufficiency and were not contemplated at the time of the original order.

The court varied the order to extend spousal support for an additional 13 years at $2,100 per month, but dismissed the applicant's alternative claim to set aside the original agreement on grounds of unconscionability and duress.

The applicant mother sought costs of $35,343.30 following a 13-day trial regarding a motion to change parenting and child support provisions.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs or pay a maximum of $10,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issue of maintaining joint custody and the parenting schedule.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including divided success, the parties' behaviour, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $20,000 to the mother.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in extended society care.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return or access, while the father consented to the protection finding but opposed the disposition and access orders.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's substance abuse and the father's unresolved anger and mental health issues.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care, granted the mother access at the Society's discretion, and directed a trial on the issue of the father's access.

The applicant father sought sole custody and significant changes to the parenting schedule and child support, alleging the mother exposed children to conflict and was deficient in care.

The respondent mother sought minor adjustments to the existing joint custody order and child support.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the older child's changing wishes, parental communication breakdown, mother's exposure of children to domestic conflict, and father's actions undermining the mother-daughter relationship.

The court maintained joint custody and the existing 8-6 parenting schedule, with modifications to respect the older child's wishes for discretion, allow paternal grandparents to assist with school transport, and clarify arrangements when the father travels.

Child support was recalculated on a set-off basis, imputing income to the mother.

Following a 19-day trial where the maternal grandmother was granted custody of her grandson, she sought costs against the respondent father and mother.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found the maternal grandmother to be substantially successful, particularly on the primary issue of custody.

Despite offers to settle not being more favourable than the final order, and considering the importance and complexity of the case, the court awarded the maternal grandmother $85,000 in costs against the father, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, taking into account his ability to pay.

No costs were awarded for or against the mother.

This case concerns a custody and access dispute over a child, Dallas David Ross, born in 2012.

The applicant, the child's maternal grandmother, sought custody, supported by the child's mother.

The respondent father also sought custody, asserting his current ability to care for the child despite past mental health issues and domestic conflict.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle, found the maternal grandmother to be the child's psychological parent, having provided a stable home environment since January 2017 and significant care prior.

The father's past conduct, including domestic violence and suicide threats witnessed by the child, and his incomplete mental health treatment, weighed against his claim.

The court granted custody to the maternal grandmother, with structured parenting time for both parents and child support orders.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for the children to be in his care and for the mother to have no access, alleging parental alienation.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, claiming the father's abusive behavior and new relationship caused the estrangement.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the mother's role in encouraging access and the father's alleged abuse.

Citing the need for a full trial to make factual determinations, the court dismissed both motions for temporary changes to custody/access.

The children are to remain with the mother, and both parents are to share joint decision-making responsibility for choosing an independent healthcare professional to assess and recommend therapy to foster a positive relationship between the children and the father.

The applicant sought a declaration of nullity for her marriage to the respondent, who consented to the order.

The basis for the application was that the respondent was still legally married to another individual at the time of his marriage to the applicant.

The court found that the respondent's prior marriage had not been dissolved until after his marriage to the applicant, rendering the latter marriage void from its inception.

The court granted the annulment, declaring the marriage void due to the prior existing marriage.

The applicant sought an order permitting him to apply for and renew Canadian passports for the parties' two children without the respondent's consent.

The parties had divorced in Bahrain, and custody orders were in place from Bahrain and Qatar, where the applicant and children resided.

The Ontario court recognized the foreign divorce but found it lacked jurisdiction over custody ancillary to divorce under the Divorce Act.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, as the Qatari court declined to address Canadian passport issues.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to grant the order, citing their inability to travel, potential loss of health and education benefits, and the unreasonableness of the respondent's refusal.

The Children's Aid Society sought a supervision order for a child with kin, while the kin (maternal great aunt and her spouse) sought custody.

The mother, father, and foster parents proposed extended society care for adoption by the foster parents.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's drug abuse and unstable living situation.

The court dismissed expert evidence on attachment theory as not specific to the child.

Ultimately, the court granted custody of the child to the kin, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered reasonable access for the mother, siblings, and foster parents.