Barry Nussbaum

A trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children following the separation of the parties.

The mother sought sole custody with discretionary access for the father and the ability to change the children's surnames.

The father sought modified joint custody with expanded access and overnight visits during the school week.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous consent order and awarded sole custody to the mother while significantly expanding the father's access and involvement in the children's lives.

The court prohibited the mother from changing the children's surnames, finding the request was motivated by improper purposes.

The applicant grandmother brought an urgent motion for the return of her grandchild after the respondent biological father withheld the child following the death of the child's mother.

The child had resided with the applicant since 2012 when both parents were arrested on drug charges.

The court found the matter urgent due to the withholding of the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the status quo should be maintained.

The applicant was granted temporary primary residence and decision-making authority pending the respondent's criminal trial, with weekend access granted to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on multiple family law issues including parenting, custody, child support, and a restraining order request.

The applicant (father) sought costs of $11,684.61, while the respondent (mother) sought no costs award.

The court found the father was the successful party based on the trial outcome and settlement offers made.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $100 per month commencing January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for non-payment.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking findings that two young children (T.D. born in 2015 and A.D.-W. born in 2016) be found in need of protection and made Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother consented to the orders sought.

The respondent father of A.D.-W. opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding the finding of need of protection and the disposition.

The court granted the society's motion, finding both children were in need of protection due to the mother's significant cognitive and mental health limitations, history of domestic violence, and lack of engagement with services.

The father's plan involving placement with the paternal grandmother was rejected due to the grandmother's extensive child welfare history and the unsuitability of the home environment.

Both children were made Crown wards without access.

This is a focused hearing on access issues following a summary judgment motion in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court had previously made G.C.A. and E.A. crown wards, with a genuine issue remaining regarding G.C.A.'s access with the mother and maternal grandmother.

The focused hearing addressed the terms and conditions of access for G.C.A. with his mother and maternal grandmother, resulting in a detailed access order with graduated hours, overnight visits on specified occasions, and conditions regarding medication compliance and the presence of third parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial on child support and a restraining order.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $15,000, while the respondent (father) proposed $3,000.

The court found the mother was substantially successful on both issues: she obtained the restraining order completely and was more successful on the child support issue.

The court considered the factors under the Family Law Rules, including the failure of both parties to make settlement offers, the reasonableness of behaviour, and the father's modest income.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $200 per month starting May 1, 2017.

A trial concerning child support obligations and restraining orders between separated parents.

The mother sought to impute income of $53,473 to the father for child support purposes, while the father claimed he was unemployed and unable to pay.

The court found the father was deliberately unemployed and capable of earning $30,000 annually, resulting in a child support order of $591 monthly.

The mother's claim for a restraining order was granted based on a history of domestic violence, while the father's claim for a restraining order against the mother was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to make two children crown wards with access to the respondents in the society's discretion.

The respondents, the mother and maternal grandmother, opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to their care.

The court heard oral evidence from the mother and maternal grandmother pursuant to subrule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to neglect, and that the respondents had demonstrated no meaningful insight into the protection concerns or the children's needs.

The court made final orders making both children crown wards, with access to the respondents in the society's discretion and in consideration of the children's wishes.

A focused hearing was scheduled to determine the access arrangements for the older child.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements, custody, and child support for two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with limited access to the respondent father, while the respondent father sought sole custody with a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that although both parents love the children and are capable of meeting their needs, the mother's attitude toward the father and her attempts to interfere with his relationship with the children were detrimental to the children's best interests.

The court granted sole custody to the father while maintaining a substantially equal shared parenting schedule, finding that the father was more willing to support the children's relationship with the mother and had been actively involved in the children's medical and educational needs since separation.

The applicant father brought a motion within a motion to change, seeking an order for the child to attend Kettle Lakes Public School in Richmond Hill.

The respondent mother opposed, proposing Churchill Public School in Toronto.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test, considering factors such as proximity of schools to residences and workplaces, consistency in the child's wake-up times, before and after school care costs and availability, residential stability"intangible" benefits of school board alignment, and familiarity with the school location.

The court found that Kettle Lakes offered significant advantages regarding consistent wake-up times and marginal advantages in before/after care and alignment with the father's school board employment.

Churchill had a significant advantage in the child's familiarity with its location.

Ultimately, the court granted the father's motion, concluding that Kettle Lakes was more consistent with the child's best interests, primarily due to avoiding a two-hour difference in wake-up times that would threaten the stability of the existing day-about care schedule.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother sought the return of her three-year-old child to her care following an apprehension triggered by her mental health crisis and the father's arrest.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the paternal grandparents.

The court determined that the hearing was an originating temporary care and custody motion, not a motion to change, and that both parents had charge of the child prior to apprehension.

Applying the test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found that the mother presented a better plan of care and ordered the child returned to her custody subject to society supervision.

The applicant mother sought costs following her success on a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, and support.

The father, residing in Pakistan, had failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and extensions.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing close to full recovery for both the wasted attendance at a case conference and the successful motion to strike.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of the defendant's adjacent property through adverse possession.

The disputed lands were converted to Land Titles in 2001, requiring the plaintiffs to prove their predecessors in title established adverse possession for a continuous ten-year period prior to that date.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the predecessors' use of the land was seasonal and intermittent, failing the requirement for constant and continuous actual possession.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the predecessors' use was inconsistent with the intended use of the true owner or that they had the intention to exclude the true owner.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of three children, no access or supervised access for the applicant father, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing.

The court granted summary judgment on most issues, finding no genuine issue requiring trial regarding custody, restraining order, and child support.

On the issue of access, the court applied expanded summary judgment powers to determine that supervised access should continue at the Toronto Supervised Access Centre rather than terminating access entirely, as the children benefit from their relationship with their father despite his history of alcohol abuse, failure to pay support, and concerning behaviour.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place two young children in its care with discretionary parental access.

The parents sought return of the children subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of harm based on unsanitary home conditions, developmental delays, inadequate stimulation, and drug trafficking activities.

However, the court determined the children could be adequately protected through strict terms and conditions of supervision, making the least disruptive placement with the parents subject to comprehensive supervision orders.

The mother sought to set aside or change a custody order (the Nevins order) that granted custody of four children to the father after the mother unlawfully retained the children in India beyond the permitted four-week travel period.

The mother claimed she had the father's consent to remain in India until the end of the school year and that she was unaware of Canadian court orders requiring the children's return.

The court rejected the mother's evidence as not credible, finding she had deliberately removed the children from the jurisdiction, ignored court orders, and misrepresented facts to authorities.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to set aside the Nevins order and her motion to change custody based on material change in circumstances.

The court confirmed the father's custody and granted the mother generous access with strict conditions, including passport restrictions and a non-removal clause, due to flight risk concerns.

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Latvia, brought by the father against the mother who fled with the child to Canada.

The mother and child were recognized as Convention refugees based on domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The court found that while the removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention, the exceptions under Articles 13(b) and 20 applied due to the grave risk of harm to the child and mother if returned, the principle of non-refoulement, and the inability of the Latvian justice system to protect victims of domestic violence.

The application was dismissed and interim custody was granted to the mother.

Both the mother and father brought motions to change a child support order dated March 25, 2011.

The mother sought to increase the table amount of child support and obtain contributions toward child-care expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The father sought to reduce his support obligation and arrears.

The court found that the father, a self-employed trucker operating through a corporation, had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed income of $40,000 per annum for the father based on available evidence, increased his table support obligation from $537 to $579 per month, and ordered him to contribute $152 per month toward child-care expenses.

The court also increased his arrears by $726 and permitted repayment at $150 per month.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order from 1995 requiring the respondent father to pay $250 monthly for their child.

The parties agreed to increase support to $558 monthly based on the respondent's current income.

The outstanding issues were the applicant's claims for retroactive increase to March 2008 and contribution to tutoring expenses.

The court granted a retroactive support award of $5,533 payable at $350 monthly based on the respondent's blameworthy conduct in underpaying support, but denied the claim for tutoring expenses retroactively and prospectively.

The respondent mother moved the child from Ontario to Alberta approximately two months after separation without notice to or consent from the applicant father.

The respondent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the child's habitual residence had changed to Alberta.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the child's habitual residence remained Ontario at the time the application was commenced.

The court held that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence by concealing a move and without the consent or acquiescence of the other parent, particularly when the period of de facto care is brief.

The respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed.