Birkin James Culp

The applicant filed multiple applications against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to participate in case management and mediation, the applicant sought to withdraw her current applications just after the deadline for submissions on whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board granted the withdrawal but proceeded to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant due to her history of filing repetitive, unfounded applications for improper purposes and her failure to comply with tribunal processes.

The applicant is required to obtain permission before filing future applications.

This is a motion to dismiss a child protection application for want of jurisdiction.

The respondent parents challenged whether the court retained jurisdiction to hear the protection application following alleged failures by the Children's Aid Society to comply with statutory prerequisites for removal of children to a place of safety.

The parents argued that two removals—on April 30, 2018 and June 1, 2018—were warrantless removals without proper grounds and that the Society failed to bring the matter to court within the required five-day statutory period.

The court found that while the April 30 removal lacked proper consent and statutory authority, the children were returned to parental care on May 15, 2018, creating a discrete event.

The June 1 removal was brought to court within the statutory timeframe and was supported by exigent circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding jurisdiction was retained.

The father brought a motion for temporary joint custody and increased access to his two-year-old child pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother opposed the expanded access, citing concerns about the father's living arrangements, while the father raised concerns about the mother's work schedule and availability.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but found it in the child's best interests to expand the father's access from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon.

Costs were awarded to the father on a partial indemnity basis.

The father brought a motion to change child support, and the mother responded with claims for section 7 expenses and summer child support for their adult child in university.

The court refused to impute rental income to the mother, finding she netted no income from the property.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the younger child's gymnastics expenses, rejecting his claim of impecuniosity due to his frequent vacations.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support during the summer months when the adult child resides with the mother, finding the usual approach inappropriate for the school year but applicable during the summer break.

The respondent father brought a motion for joint custody and primary care of the parties' two-year-old child.

The court had previously ordered the parties to submit intake forms to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and strongly recommended a section 112 investigation.

The applicant mother refused to submit the forms, and her counsel argued she had the right to decline the investigation.

The court found this non-compliance disturbing, drew an adverse inference against the mother, and expressed concern over her mental health issues and lack of evidence regarding the child's needs.

The court ordered both parties to submit the OCL forms within 10 days, adjourned the custody motion, and directed counsel to prepare submissions on why costs should not be awarded against the mother's counsel personally.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making two of her children Crown wards without access and granting custody of her third child, who has Down syndrome, to the biological father without access to the mother.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, including child hearsay and medical evidence, and in denying her access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or determination that access was not in the children's best interests given the mother's history of physical discipline, lack of insight, and failure to address the children's needs.

Following trial in a family law proceeding, the court addressed child contact, child support, a spousal support claim by the respondent, imputation of income, arrears, and the mechanics of paying an agreed equalization amount.

The court held that the powers in ss. 9 and 34 of the Family Law Act are enabling provisions available where the evidence supports their use, and in any event the issue had been sufficiently raised by the consent order leaving the mechanics of payment to the trial judge.

Applying the income-imputation framework, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, rejected his financial disclosure as unreliable, and imputed annual income of $68,411.

The spousal support claim was dismissed, child support and arrears were ordered, and the equalization payment was charged as security for ongoing support and reduced by the arrears and related amounts owed.

Following an order declaring the respondent incapable of managing property and appointing a guardian, the parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant, whose application initiated the process, and the section 3 counsel appointed for the incapable person, were entitled to their costs.

The court ordered that the costs of the applicant on a partial indemnity basis and the section 3 counsel on a full indemnity basis be paid out of the incapable person's estate.

This trial concerned a mother's request to relocate with her two daughters and the father's opposition, coupled with his request for sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

The court determined that the mother's irrational actions, including influencing the children's views and interfering with access, were detrimental to the children's well-being and their relationship with their father and brother.

Consequently, the court denied the mother's request to relocate, transferred sole custody of the daughters to the father, and extinguished child support arrears owed by the father.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs for a period of over a year, following a successful motion to fix child support to the table amount.

The court, applying Family Law Rule 24(10), determined that costs should be decided promptly after each step and restricted the award to the specific issue argued on August 9, 2016.

Given the intertwining of evidence with a broader motion to change, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for three hours of oral argument and preparation, totaling $847.50, reserving other costs to the judge finally disposing of the motion to change.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought findings of protection and Crown Wardship for all three children.

The court found that the mother inflicted physical harm on the children through hitting them with a stick and other harsh discipline, causing complex trauma and emotional harm.

The court made findings of protection for all three children.

For the two older children, the court ordered Crown Wardship with no access to the mother.

For the youngest child, the court placed him in the custody of his father with no access to the mother, finding that the father was providing appropriate care and that the child was thriving in his care.

The respondent, Jeffrey, brought a motion to change a 2012 order, seeking sole custody of the children, termination of spousal support, payment of extraordinary expenses, and adjustments to the matrimonial home payout.

The applicant, Denise, sought dismissal of these motions.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's motions, finding no material change in circumstances to warrant changes to custody or spousal support.

The court found the respondent's allegations of the applicant's involvement with biker gangs and drug use to be unfounded and based on incredible witness testimony.

The court also imputed income to both parties at their previous levels, finding no material change in financial circumstances.

The court declined to grant the respondent credit for mortgage payments on the matrimonial home or for extraordinary expenses he unilaterally incurred.

Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.

The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.

The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.

The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.

A mid-trial motion by the respondent mother to amend her pleadings to include a claim for placement of the subject child with the maternal great aunt was denied.

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society since 2013 following removal due to domestic violence and substance abuse concerns.

The mother had not previously advanced the kinship care plan despite multiple opportunities to do so, including at trial management conference and when filing amended pleadings.

The court found that granting the amendment would require a substantial adjournment, necessitate reopening the Society's case, and result in significant delay prejudicial to the child's need for permanency.

The court emphasized the importance of procedural efficiency and the child's best interests in child protection proceedings.

On a family law motion, the mother sought an order changing the schooling of twin children from a long-standing church school to public school.

The court held that where parties share custody, the court may isolate education as an incident of custody and decide the issue solely on the children's best interests under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court rejected allegations that the existing school arrangement was harmful, found no material change in circumstances from the parties' prior agreement that the children would continue at that school, and placed weight on the children's strong preference to remain there and the stability the school provided during family upheaval.

The motion was dismissed.

Multiple competing family law motions addressed child support, retroactive support, post‑secondary expenses, reinstatement of spousal support, and insurance obligations following a prior separation agreement and a subsequent divorce order.

The court considered the interaction between a 2001 separation agreement and a 2006 divorce order that increased and time‑limited spousal support.

Applying principles from Miglin and related jurisprudence, the court held that spousal support could be reinstated despite the earlier termination because the agreement contemplated material changes once child support ended and the recipient’s economic disadvantage persisted due to caregiving responsibilities.

The court also ordered retroactive guideline child support reflecting the payor’s increased income and continued support for an adult child suffering from major depression who remained dependent.

Other contractual provisions relating to life insurance and benefits were left intact.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.

Following a successful family law motion regarding parenting access and issues involving an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably by refusing access to the child and frustrating the OCL investigation.

The court found the respondent’s rigid refusal to permit access and her conduct during the clinical investigation constituted unreasonable behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the claimed fees to reflect reasonable hourly rates, adjusted travel time, and applied a further reduction due to the respondent’s financial circumstances as a single parent with several children.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount and ordered payable within 90 days.

The applicant sought retroactive and future spousal support following a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent, who had recently retired after 30 years of service, opposed future support, arguing his pension had already been equalized.

The court awarded $15,000 in retroactive spousal support but dismissed the claim for future support, finding the respondent's retirement was reasonable and he had no obligation to supplement his pension income.

Claims for compensatory support and arguments regarding gross repudiation of the marriage were also dismissed.

The responding party brought a motion for temporary relief pending trial in a family law dispute concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The court continued a prior order preventing enforcement of extraordinary expenses through the Family Responsibility Office, finding that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the amount and apportionment of those expenses created issues requiring trial.

The court also adjusted the payor’s guideline child support based on confirmed income figures, ordering retroactive support based on a 2011–2012 income of $44,850 and prospective support based on a 2013 income of $48,464.

The court further authorized questioning sessions in light of the triable issues and declined to make a costs order given the divided success on the motion.