Bayly Guslits

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property, child support, spousal support, and tort damages for intimate partner violence.

The respondent husband claimed the marriage was a nullity based on immigration fraud.

The court dismissed the nullity claim, finding the marriage genuine.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $411,499.45 to the wife and found her entitled to spousal support.

The claim for child support was dismissed as the husband did not stand in the place of a parent.

The court awarded the wife $40,000 in damages for the tort of intimate partner violence due to the husband's coercive and controlling behaviour.

The responding party brought a motion seeking enforcement of a final consent order made on December 19, 2024, which divided the matrimonial home's contents between the parties upon separation.

The moving party alleged that the responding party breached the order by removing nearly all household contents, fixtures, furniture, and appliances from the home contrary to the agreed terms, causing estimated damages of $111,000.

The court found a clear and wilful breach of the final order under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, rejected the clean hands argument premised on alleged child support non-compliance, and awarded $60,000 as compensatory damages or, in the alternative, as a fine or penalty, enforceable as a judgment not to be set off against child support obligations.

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.

The mother, a Jordanian citizen, brought the parties' three children from Kuwait to Ontario and sought a parenting order.

The father, residing in Kuwait, challenged Ontario's jurisdiction and sought the return of the children pursuant to Kuwaiti custody orders.

The court found that while the children were not habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application commenced, Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the children's physical presence, substantial connection, and the balance of convenience.

Alternatively, the court found jurisdiction under s. 23, as the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Kuwait due to the risk of psychological harm, family violence, and the children's strong views against returning.

The father's request to recognize the Kuwaiti orders was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $4,898.55 on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the applicant's motion for the trial judge's recusal.

The applicant, a self-represented mother, claimed an inability to pay.

The court noted significant deficiencies in the respondent's bill of costs, including a failure to break down hours spent specifically on the recusal motion.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $600 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to appeal a prior order that restricted further motions without permission.

The court clarified that the prior order was not intended to apply to motions for leave to appeal or stay the order itself.

The court granted permission for the motion, if required, and directed the applicant to serve and file the motion in the regular course pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions.

The applicant sought to dismiss previous court orders and trial proceedings, while the respondent sought orders for the children's return to London, deposit of their travel documents, and restrictions on their removal from London.

The court found the applicant's motion lacked urgency and merit, and her conduct demonstrated non-compliance with prior orders regarding the children's residence.

The respondent's motion was granted, ordering the children's return to London, deposit of their passports and birth certificates with the court, and strict conditions on future travel and residence changes.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought an oral motion for the recusal of the trial judge, alleging bias due to the judge's prior involvement in case management and administrative functions related to the file.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high onus of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality, the fact-specific nature of recusal cases, and the importance of judicial continuity in family law proceedings.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer moved for the appointment of amicus curiae in a complex international child abduction case.

Both the self-represented applicant and the respondent opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's conduct, including her inability to focus on legal issues, failure to file evidence, and mistrust of the court process, risked injustice.

The court determined that amicus assistance was essential for a fair and orderly trial, despite the applicant's right to self-representation, and that the potential for delay was manageable.

The applicant sought child support, property division (equalization or constructive trust), and divorce, while the respondent challenged the validity of their marriage.

The trial ended abruptly due to the respondent's disruptive conduct.

The court found the respondent's credibility lacking.

The court determined the marriage was valid under the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

M.3, applying the principles from Lalonde v. Agha.

The court imputed income for child support and ordered retroactive child support.

It also found a constructive trust in favour of the applicant for 50% of the property sale proceeds due to her contributions and the respondent's unjust enrichment, and ordered adjustments for advances, a second mortgage, and costs.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a five-day trial in an international child abduction case, citing educational conflicts, inability to file evidence after counsel termination, and uncompleted procedural steps.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not, noting the children's preference to remain with the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the need for prompt disposition in international child abduction cases under Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules, and found her reasons insufficient to warrant delay.

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 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 appellant mother appealed a trial decision finding her three children in need of protection and placing them in extended Society care.

The trial judge also reduced the mother's access from weekly to bi-monthly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the protection finding and disposition, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risks and the mother's plan.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to give full effect to section 17 of the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, which requires promoting ties to family for Indigenous children.

The access issue was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The applicant father sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' seven-year-old son to Mexico.

The respondent mother opposed, relying on two exceptions: grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse and the child's resistance to return.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold for grave risk of harm, noting a lack of objective evidence and the father's amenability to the justice system.

The court also determined that the child, at seven and a half years old, had not reached an appropriate age and degree of maturity for his views to be determinative, as his objections were inconsistent and influenced by his new environment rather than fear for his safety.

The father's application for the child's return was granted, with specific undertakings for the child's protection and transition in Mexico.

The applicant father sought a temporary order to vary a final parenting order, requesting a change in the children's primary residence from the respondent mother to himself.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the father's motion, citing chronic dysfunction and conflict in the mother's household impacting the children's well-being.

The court applied the two-stage test for varying parenting orders, including the stringent threshold for temporary variations of final orders, and found a material change in circumstances.

Giving significant weight to the children's clear and consistent views, the court determined that changing primary residence to the father was in the children's best interests to address the intolerable situation and prevent further harm.

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 case concerns a father's motion to return a child (L.F.R.) to London, Ontario, and the mother's cross-motion to allow L.F.R. to remain with her in Springhill, Nova Scotia, following a relocation.

The court found the mother had complied with the separation agreement's relocation notice provisions and, alternatively, that the relocation was in the child's best interests, particularly given the child's transgender identity and the supportive environment in Springhill.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, allowing L.F.R. to remain in Springhill.

The applicant sought costs of $3,272.91 following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to her limited financial means, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $500.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, had made reasonable offers to settle, and that the respondent's failure to respond to settlement efforts was unreasonable.

After deducting time entries unrelated to the motion and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $2,000.