Barry M. Tobin

In competing family law motions, the moving party sought permission to move the children’s residence to another city, change schools, and change dentists, while the responding party sought dismissal and argued the move constituted a relocation engaging heightened statutory requirements.

Applying the Divorce Act framework, the court held the proposed move was a change in residence, not a relocation, because with schedule and transportation adjustments it was not likely to significantly impact the children’s relationship with the non-moving parent.

The court found written notice requirements were met and concluded the proposed parenting and care plan was in the children’s best interests.

Temporary terms were set for pickup/return logistics and weekday parenting end times.

The moving party’s requests were granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding a five-year-old child, M.M. The Court found that the child remained in need of protection and ordered her placement in extended society care with the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex.

The Court considered the plans of both the father and the Society, ultimately determining that the Society’s plan best met the child’s best interests, including permanency and stability.

The decision also addresses access arrangements for the parents and paternal grandmother, balancing the preservation of family relationships with the child’s need for permanency.

This decision concerns a motion to change a parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court finds a material change in circumstances since the original order, including ongoing conflict, family violence, and the child's exposure to harm.

The mother is granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also addresses child support, imputing income to the father based on available evidence, and sets out a detailed parenting schedule and related orders.

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and school registration for the child of Jason Kyle Sheedy and Karen Nadine Shackelton following their separation.

The court considered the best interests of the child, the parties' conflicting evidence, and the need for stability.

The court ordered that the child be enrolled at Caradoc Public School and set out a detailed interim parenting schedule, balancing time between both parents and emphasizing the importance of following court orders.

This decision resolves a range of family law issues following the separation of Mei Yee Lau and Wing Hong Tao, including parenting time, child support, property division, and the treatment of gifts and loans from family members.

The court determined the best interests of the children required a parenting schedule closely aligned with the mother's proposal, found the date of separation to be December 24, 2019, and addressed the tracing and exclusion of gifted property under the Family Law Act.

The court also considered the treatment of RESPs, imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, and made orders for equalization and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant mother sought both ongoing and retroactive child support from the respondent father, as well as a determination of the father's contribution to special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed the date of separation as August 10, 2018, and, after considering the relevant factors, ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, in the amount of $37,500, to be paid in installments.

The court also ordered the father to pay 72% of certain section 7 expenses, both retroactively and prospectively, and set out a detailed parenting plan and holiday schedule.

A divorce was granted.

The respondent, Christopher Eric Waltham, brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking termination of his obligation retroactive to the child's 18th birthday and a reduction of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's health issues and ODSP qualification.

Despite late formal notice, the court exercised discretion to retroactively decrease support to January 1, 2017, citing the respondent's understandable fear of the applicant.

The child support obligation was terminated as of August 31, 2018, as the child was no longer a minor, not in full-time education, and not unable to withdraw from parental charge.

Arrears were recalculated and significantly reduced, with most held funds to be returned to the respondent.

This is Part 2 of a judgment resolving outstanding family law issues following initial findings.

The court determined retrospective and ongoing child and spousal support payments, the tax treatment of retroactive spousal support, and the duration of spousal support.

It also addressed equalization payment calculations, including contingent tax liabilities on corporate and cottage assets, and post-equalization adjustments related to a joint line of credit.

The court clarified that new expert reports not presented at trial could not be relied upon for proving contingent tax liabilities.

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Italy for a 10-month school year to advance her career.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion for interim decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework from the Divorce Act and Barendregt v Grebliunas, found the mother's relocation plan reasonable and in the children's best interests, considering her career advancement, the temporary nature of the move, and her detailed plan for maintaining the father's parenting time.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and the mother was granted permission to obtain passports for the children without the father's consent.

Travel costs were apportioned 75% to the mother and 25% to the father.

The applicant father sought to change existing parenting orders, requesting sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a 120-day no-contact period for the mother, and a police enforcement order, alleging the mother was alienating the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to suspend or supervise the father's parenting time, citing the children's resistance due to the father's alleged behavior.

The Children's Lawyer did not support either drastic request, suggesting clinical intervention.

The court dismissed both motions, finding insufficient evidence to support a drastic change in parenting arrangements on an interim basis, and ordered existing parenting orders to continue with attempts at contact, emphasizing the need for clinical intervention and judicial oversight.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother, alleging she failed to comply with court orders regarding parenting time and telephone contact with their two children.

The court reviewed the history of parenting time issues, including incidents where the children did not transition to the father's care and conflicting accounts of the mother's efforts to facilitate contact.

Applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for contempt, the court found that while the children were not in the father's care on certain dates, the father failed to prove the mother intentionally breached the orders, except for one instance due to a family emergency, for which no contempt finding was warranted.

The court also found ambiguity in some order provisions regarding telephone calls and parenting time exchanges.

The father's contempt motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that contempt is a tool of last resort, especially in family law, and that the best interests of the children are paramount.

The Superior Court of Justice heard a family law trial concerning parenting, child support, spousal support, and a tort claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court granted a divorce, established joint decision-making responsibility with the mother having final authority, and set a parenting schedule with the mother as primary caregiver during the school year and week-about time during summer.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, but no amount was ordered due to the father's inability to pay after child support.

The mother's claim for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as the father's conduct, while insensitive, was not found to be flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to cause harm.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the two children in Toronto, along with child support and communication limits.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary residence in London, and child support.

Both parties also sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain a divorce.

The court found that the mother had experienced family violence from the father, which impacted her ability to communicate directly.

Considering the children's best interests, including their stability in Toronto and the mother's primary caregiver role, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father was granted defined parenting time, and specific communication protocols were ordered.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income, and spousal support was terminated as per the mother's request.

A divorce order was also issued.

This family law trial addressed the equalization of net family property and child support following the parties' separation.

Key issues included determining the beneficial ownership and valuation of assets, particularly a Saudi company (Joud Metals Est.) registered in the husband's sister's name, and the imputation of income to the husband for child support purposes.

The court found the husband to be the beneficial owner of the Saudi company's assets and imputed income to him due to intentional under-employment, leading to an equalization payment and child support arrears in favour of the wife.

This was a focused summary hearing to determine the date of separation for a married couple, which impacts retroactive child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization.

The applicant wife claimed separation on January 1, 2015, while the respondent husband asserted December 2018.

The court found the wife's evidence, including her consistent tax filings as separated, changing locks, and corroboration from a child, to be more credible and consistent.

The husband's evidence was deemed inconsistent and deficient.

The court concluded that the parties separated on January 1, 2015.

The case addresses whether a non-party, a consular official from the Consulate General of Peru, should be allowed to attend a family law settlement conference.

The respondent father requested their attendance for observation, citing a need to ensure due process.

The applicant mother, supported by the child's counsel, opposed, citing confidentiality concerns, the private nature of settlement conferences, and her successful asylum claim in Canada based on a lack of protection from Peruvian authorities.

The court determined that settlement conferences are not public hearings subject to the open courts principle and that allowing consular officials to attend would impair candid discussions essential for resolution, especially given the mother's asylum status.

The court exercised its discretion to deny the request, prioritizing the effectiveness and confidentiality of the settlement process.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and her partner, sought primary care of the child, Addison, and defined parenting time for the child's parents.

The mother sought the child's return to her care, and the father sought primary care for himself.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the applicants, citing concerns about the mother's alcohol abuse and the instability of her living situation, and the potential disruption to the child's established community ties if placed with the father.

Joint decision-making responsibility was ordered, with final authority for the maternal grandmother.

Specific parenting time schedules were set for both parents, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

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.