Barry M. Tobin

The applicant brought a motion to split the divorce claim from the other issues in the case pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice her pending claims in India, and relied on an affidavit from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the expert evidence inadmissible because the lawyer was not sufficiently qualified and the opinion lacked reliability.

Finding no disadvantage to either spouse, the court granted the motion to split the divorce and awarded costs to the applicant.

During a family law trial involving decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the self-represented applicant mother testified about family violence, including sexual assault, perpetrated by the respondent father.

The court raised concerns about the applicant having to cross-examine the respondent and adjourned the matter to consider appointing amicus curiae to assist with the cross-examination, inviting submissions from the parties, the Attorney General for Ontario, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The applicant moved under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules to split his request for a divorce from the other issues in the case.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that a Canadian divorce would prejudice her ability to pursue property claims against the applicant in India.

The respondent relied on an unsworn letter from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the letter inadmissible as expert evidence due to a lack of qualifications and explanation.

However, to deal with the case justly, the court adjourned the motion to allow both parties to obtain and present admissible expert evidence regarding Indian law.

At a case management appearance, the self-represented applicant sought to adjourn the upcoming trial and amend her application to advance a new theory.

The court scheduled a motion to adjourn the trial before the trial judge and granted the applicant leave to file an amended application.

The matter returned to update the court on the parties' readiness for trial regarding a jurisdictional dispute over child custody between Ontario and Kuwait.

The applicant requested more time to prepare, but the court directed the trial to commence in November 2023 as a hybrid proceeding.

The court also permitted the filing of a lengthy affidavit on behalf of the Children's Lawyer and scheduled a further update.

The parties appeared for an update on trial readiness in a family law matter.

The self-represented applicant requested Kuwaiti court documents from the respondent, which he agreed to attempt to provide.

The court noted that preliminary resolution steps would not be pursued and directed the trial coordinator to schedule an expedited trial.

The matter was adjourned to September 5, 2023, for a further update.

The matter was before the court for the commencement of a trial regarding an international child abduction.

On consent of the parties and the Children's Lawyer, the trial was adjourned to allow the parties to obtain expert reports on Kuwaiti family law, file an expert report from the Children's Lawyer, and arrange relationship counseling for the children.

A further appearance was scheduled to monitor progress.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking a temporary order to relocate the parties' child from London to Calgary.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought a 2-2-3 parenting schedule.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the mother, as the primary caregiver, had a reasonable plan for relocation that would provide her with family support and career advancement.

The court determined that the relocation was in the child's best interests and granted the temporary order, while establishing a schedule for the father's contact with the child.

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.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an international child abduction claim.

The court noted that the Children's Lawyer had not been notified and a first meeting had not been held, as required by the Family Law Rules.

Given the issues of credibility and the need for expert evidence on foreign law, the court adjourned the motion, ordered the involvement of the Children's Lawyer, and scheduled a trial of the issues.

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 parties separated after a brief marriage and sought orders regarding parenting, child support, and spousal support for their six-year-old child.

The mother withdrew her initial request to relocate to Germany.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final decision-making authority subject to certain limitations, and granted the mother primary residence with the father having parenting time on alternate weekends and one overnight per week.

The father was ordered to pay $605 per month in child support and $150 per month in indefinite spousal support, subject to review.

The father's claim for retroactive reimbursement of spousal support was dismissed, though a minor credit for child support overpayment was granted.

The Children's Aid Society sought an extended society care order for three First Nations children who had been in foster care for over three years.

The mother, who had overcome substance abuse and secured housing, sought their return.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's past neglect and failure to protect them.

Applying the augmented best interests test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court concluded that removing the children from their long-term foster mother, to whom they were securely attached, would cause unacceptable emotional harm.

The children were placed in extended society care with access granted to the mother, siblings, and father.

The applicant moved for a post-judgment Mareva injunction in aid of execution, alleging the respondent intended to sell his home and move to Mexico to avoid paying child support and costs.

The court found the applicant established a strong prima facie case that there was a risk the respondent intended to remove assets from the jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, which was ordered to remain in effect for 120 days.

The respondent father brought a motion to change existing parenting and child support orders, seeking shared decision-making responsibility, equal parenting time, and rescission of child support arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the passage of time and the respondent's new residence.

However, due to ongoing communication difficulties between the parties, the court granted the applicant mother final decision-making responsibility with an obligation to consult the respondent.

The respondent was granted minimum alternate weekend parenting time.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $90,000, ordered ongoing child support of $1,351 per month, and dismissed his request to rescind arrears.

The applicant father was successful at trial on a motion to change child support and sought costs of $7,500.

The self-represented respondent mother conceded entitlement but argued the quantum should be $1,000 due to her financial circumstances and the lack of complexity.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the mother's limited ability to pay, and fixed costs at $2,500 payable at $100 per month.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking an extended society care order for a three-year-old child who had been in foster care since birth.

The mother sought the child's return.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved anger management issues, housing instability, and association with individuals involved in criminal activity.

Concluding that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child, the court ordered extended society care.

The court also granted limited supervised access to the mother and siblings, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

Both parents had serious histories of violence for which they were found not criminally responsible, but had since received absolute discharges from the Ontario Review Board and were successfully managing their mental health conditions.

The Society and the parents sought an order returning the child to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order, which the Children's Lawyer opposed.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the catastrophic risk if either parent relapsed, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the parents' care with strict supervision terms, as the risk of relapse was low and well-monitored.

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.