Brenda D. Barr

The court addressed cross-motions between separated parents concerning parenting time, decision-making, and support for their two children.

The applicant mother sought compliance with a prior consent order for shared parenting of their 14-year-old son (C.) and remedies for alleged non-compliance, including reconciliation therapy.

The respondent father sought to vary the order for C. to reside primarily with him, reflecting C.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the mother's non-compliance claim, finding a credible explanation for the father's actions given the interim nature of the prior order and the mother's contradictory stance.

The court varied the order for C. to reside primarily with the father, giving significant weight to C.'s strong and consistent views and preferences, citing a breakdown of trust with the mother.

The mother's request for reconciliation therapy was dismissed due to C.'s resistance and lack of compelling evidence for its benefit at this stage.

The court also dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making authority for their 12-year-old daughter (G.), noting no imminent significant decisions and poor parental communication.

Support variation claims from both parties were dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure, with these issues deferred to trial.

The court ordered the father to provide financial disclosure and both parents to refrain from derogatory remarks about each other to the children.

The Applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award concerning the sale of a jointly owned property, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to invalidate prior court orders granting her a right of first refusal.

The Respondent sought dismissal, arguing the prior orders were not final and the arbitrator acted within scope.

The court found the arbitrator correctly determined he lacked jurisdiction to enforce court orders, but erred in concluding he could invalidate them or direct a sale without formal agreement.

The court set aside the portion of the award requiring the property's sale and the reimbursement of expenses, upholding the Applicant's right of first refusal.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for her repeated failure to comply with court orders requiring their children to attend in-person schooling.

The court found that the applicant had established the elements of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised its discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt or impose a monetary penalty, citing the best interests of the children and the punitive nature of contempt.

Instead, the court declared the respondent's willful non-compliance, granted the applicant authority to obtain educational information, imposed restrictions on the respondent's ability to bring future motions, and awarded substantial costs to the applicant, to be set off against spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and primary residency of the children.

The respondent brought a countermotion seeking a nesting order or exclusive possession, and parenting time.

The court lifted the existing interim restraining order, finding the applicant's fears were not objectively legitimate to warrant the order.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding a nesting order inappropriate due to ongoing conflict.

The court ordered a parenting schedule providing the respondent with regular overnight parenting time and dismissed the applicant's request for interim sole decision-making as premature.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring their two teenage daughters to return to in-person schooling.

The respondent admitted non-compliance, citing the children's refusal and her own beliefs aligned with a religious organization during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bouchard v. Sgovio, the court declined to make an immediate contempt finding, instead utilizing its broad enforcement powers under Family Law Rule 1(8) to order the respondent to take specific steps to enroll the children for the upcoming school year.

The contempt motion was adjourned to monitor compliance.

Following two motions regarding the child's residence where the respondent father was substantially successful, the father sought costs of $10,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reserved.

The underlying dispute involved the mother overholding the child due to allegations that the father distributed intimate images of her online without consent.

The court held that if the father is proven to be the perpetrator at trial, his behaviour could be considered unreasonable and affect his entitlement to costs.

Therefore, the court reserved the determination of costs to the trial judge when a full evidentiary record will be available.

The mother withheld the child from the father after the father was charged with distributing intimate images of the mother online.

The father brought a motion for the return of the child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for a temporary variation of the final parenting order to grant her primary care.

The court found the matter urgent but dismissed the mother's motion for a temporary variation, holding that the untested affidavit evidence regarding the father's involvement in the distribution of the images was not sufficiently compelling to establish an immediate risk of harm to the child.

The mother was ordered to return the child to the father's care.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions for interim custody and access of their two-year-old child.

The mother sought interim sole custody due to the child's concerning behaviors following access visits and a suspected milk allergy, which the father dismissed.

The father sought interim joint custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding the father's dismissive attitude toward the child's symptoms and need for control were not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's access time but rejected his request for equal parenting time, emphasizing that the maximum contact principle must be subject to the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The moving party (the respondent in the family proceeding) brought a motion to sever the divorce from the corollary issues under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that child support arrangements were not reasonable and that she would lose extended health benefits.

The court granted the severance, finding that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made and that the loss of health benefits did not amount to significant prejudice.

The applicant, a transgender male, sought a divorce from his Texas marriage and an annulment of his subsequent Ontario marriage to the respondent.

The court found the Texas marriage valid under Ontario conflict of laws rules, applying Canadian law due to lack of proof of foreign law.

Consequently, the Ontario marriage was deemed bigamous and annulled.

The court also addressed procedural matters regarding proof of prior divorce and service under the Hague Service Convention.

The moving party failed to attend the family law trial, resulting in the dismissal of his spousal support claim and the trial proceeding in his absence.

Before final judgment was rendered, he retained counsel and brought a motion to reopen the trial.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment by analogy, finding that while the moving party's explanation for his absence was inadequate, his spousal support claim had significant merit given the length of the marriage and income disparity.

To ensure procedural fairness, the court set aside the dismissal of the spousal support claim and reopened the trial for that issue only, but declined to reopen the property and equalization issues.

Following motions for interim custody, access, and support, the respondent sought costs of $13,000 against actual legal fees of nearly $25,000.

The applicant argued the costs were outrageous and sought no costs due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the more successful party, but significantly reduced the award due to her unreasonable conduct, including self-help and filing excessively voluminous and irrelevant affidavit material.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs, payable at the final resolution of the proceeding.

The parties brought motions for various interim relief concerning custody, child support, and spousal support.

The court awarded interim sole custody of the two children to the respondent, permitting her to relocate with the children to Strathroy.

The applicant was granted generous interim access.

The court found the respondent to be the primary caregiver prior to separation and considered the applicant's alcohol consumption as a negative factor impacting parenting ability.

The previous "nesting order" was deemed not in the children's best interests due to the high-conflict relationship between the parents.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,176 per month and interim spousal support of $350 per month, while remaining solely responsible for the family home expenses.

The Applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the Respondent for unilaterally denying him access to their son.

The Respondent had denied access based on information from the Applicant's estranged ex-girlfriend concerning an alleged altercation and steroid use.

The court found the Respondent in contempt, ruling that the alleged incident did not constitute a "serious risk of harm" to the child, which is the only legal justification for breaching a court order.

The Applicant's original unsupervised access was reinstated, and makeup access was granted.

The Respondent's cross-motion for an interim variation of access and a s. 30 assessment was denied leave and adjourned to a Case Conference, as no urgency or clear case for relief was established.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following the parties’ separation, along with related orders concerning health benefits and life insurance as security for support obligations.

The court determined the parties’ guideline incomes and rejected the respondent’s request to impute additional income to the applicant due to insufficient disclosure by the respondent and conflicting evidence regarding the applicant’s employment efforts.

Applying the principles governing effective notice from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court ordered set-off child support payable by the respondent effective June 1, 2015.

The court declined to make spousal support retroactive due to unresolved financial issues, including potential debts and outstanding equalization.

A temporary order was issued addressing child support, spousal support prospectively, special expenses, tax claims, insurance security, and benefits coverage.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children with weekend access to the respondent father, alleging abusive and controlling behaviour.

The respondent father sought a shared parenting arrangement, arguing he had been equally involved in parenting prior to separation.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse unpersuasive and determined that a shared parenting arrangement was in the children's best interests, maintaining the pre-separation status quo.

The court ordered a two-day-on, two-day-off shared custody schedule and calculated child support on an offset basis pursuant to section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered a motion supported by the society and the mother to place two children in the mother’s temporary care subject to society supervision.

The children had previously been placed in the father’s care and later in society care due to ongoing parental conflict and emotional harm concerns.

Updated therapeutic evidence indicated the children now felt safe in the mother’s home and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address prior issues.

The court found the risk of emotional harm had subsided and ordered the children returned to the mother under an interim supervision order with structured access for the father and mandatory therapeutic involvement.

The matter was scheduled for review to monitor compliance and the children’s adjustment.

The mother sought costs following a contested motion regarding child access.

The mother had made an offer to settle that mirrored the final order, except for a restriction on the children's contact with a specific individual and a provision for no costs.

The father had unreasonably insisted on supervised access, necessitating the contested motion.

The court found the mother was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court reduced the costs awarded due to the mother's unreliable evidence and divided success on a motion to strike.

The father was ordered to pay costs fixed at $6,030.53.

On competing interim motions in a family proceeding, the applicant sought to eliminate a prior order requiring supervised access with the parties’ three children, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred after he returned to work and obtained medical clearance following treatment for depression.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought continuation of the supervised access regime established by an earlier interim order.

The court held that variation of an interim custody or access order requires compelling evidence of changed circumstances demonstrating that the current arrangement is not in the children’s best interests.

The court found insufficient time had passed since the earlier order to conclude that the applicant’s mental health had stabilized in the long term.

Supervised access therefore continued, subject to limited relaxations in certain public settings, and interim child support was ordered pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and for the transfer of a property to joint names pursuant to an interim separation agreement.

The parties, both physicians, had a significant income disparity.

The court ordered the respondent to transfer the property to joint names, fixed the applicant's income at $60,000 and the respondent's income at $550,000, and ordered the respondent to pay $6,572 monthly in table child support, $10,500 monthly in spousal support, and 69.5% of section 7 expenses.