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.

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 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.

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 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.

The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex brought a status review application seeking a finding that the child remained in need of protection and an order granting custody to the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought the child's return to her care.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of associating with dangerous men, her difficulty perceiving and removing herself from such risks, and her inconsistent parenting skills.

The court granted custody to the aunt and uncle, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion within a motion to change for a temporary order specifying access exchanges with the parties' child and requiring the respondent mother to pay for therapy sessions aimed at reconciling the child with the father.

The child, born in 2006, had been in the mother's custody since 2008 with the father having unsupervised access.

Access had been expanded informally by January 2017 but ceased in July 2017 when the mother refused the father's request for expanded summer access.

The child, now 11 years old, was resistant to access.

The court found the mother had not made sufficient effort in certain respects but had generally complied with her obligations.

The court ordered electronic communication via video chat on specified days and directed the parties to obtain a therapist's report and schedule a case conference.

A child protection application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a child born to parents with a history of prior child protection findings.

The respondent father had been convicted of serious sexual offences including sexual abuse of a child, possession of child pornography, and indecent exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed with the paternal grandmother and uncle.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under clause 74(2)(d) (risk of sexual abuse or exploitation) and sought placement with the paternal grandmother and uncle under Society supervision.

The respondent parents sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the child to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that placement with the parents under Society supervision was in the child's best interests, recognizing the father's prosocial behaviour over many years, the mother's demonstrated protective capacity, and the child's strong attachment to both parents.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support and spousal support issues.

The applicant sought costs of $115,000.00 all inclusive, while the respondent submitted that costs should be fixed at $18,000.00 with a $3,000.00 set-off.

The trial resulted in an order for ongoing child support based on structured settlement annuity payments, dismissal of the applicant's retroactive child support claim, and dismissal of the respondent's request to terminate spousal support.

The court found the applicant was substantially more successful on the significant issues and awarded costs of $47,000.00 inclusive, payable at $1,200.00 per month commencing July 1, 2018.

A support payor who became an undischarged bankrupt challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to conduct a default hearing on child support arrears.

The payor argued that bankruptcy matters fall exclusively within the Superior Court of Justice's jurisdiction and that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act prevented the default hearing from proceeding.

The court held that a default hearing is a family law enforcement procedure, not a bankruptcy matter, and that support claims are not stayed by bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge and confirmed its authority to conduct the default hearing.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement and child support for two adult children, while the respondent sought to set aside the spousal support provisions and terminate his support obligations.

The court found that structured settlement annuity payments constitute income for child support purposes and should be grossed-up for tax purposes.

The court awarded table amount child support for both children, including an adult child enrolled in post-secondary education.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments to set aside the spousal support provisions and found no material change in circumstances warranting termination.

Retroactive child support arrears were rescinded based on the parties' oral agreement and the DBS factors.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking production of hospital records for the respondent mother from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017.

The Society sought these records to investigate its theory that the mother was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it constituted a fishing expedition.

The court found the Society's request as originally framed was over-broad but granted a narrowed version of the motion, restricting production to hospital admission records where the mother presented with physical injuries or complaints about domestic conflict.