B. Tobin

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.

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 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 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.

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 parties separated in 2011 after 25 years of marriage.

The husband sought a divorce, an unequal division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, half of the funds allegedly withdrawn by the wife from a joint account, half of an RESP, and reimbursement for junk removal costs.

The court granted the divorce and ordered an equal division of the home sale proceeds, finding no basis for an unequal division.

The husband's claims regarding the joint account and RESP were dismissed, as the RESP was deemed a trust for the child.

The wife was ordered to reimburse the husband for half the junk removal costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children and to rescind any arrears.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing that the younger child remained a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act due to various disabilities preventing him from withdrawing from her charge.

The court found that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of the alleged disabilities and noted the child had successfully obtained employment and Employment Insurance benefits.

The court terminated child support for both children, recalculated the amounts owed based on the father's income, and fixed the arrears at $1,370.

The father brought a contempt motion and a motion to change a final parenting order after the mother withheld his parenting time for an extended period.

The mother withheld the child following two weekends where the child returned with severe diaper rash, leading to a child protection investigation that verified neglect by the father.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the clear terms of the order, she did not act with contumacious intent but out of a legitimate concern for the child.

The court exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than find the mother in contempt.

The father's motion to change the order to add make-up time and a police enforcement clause was dismissed as not being in the child's best interests.

Following an eight-day family law trial where the mother was the more successful party, the court determined issues of interest and costs.

The parties consented to pre-judgment interest at 1.8% and post-judgment interest at 2%.

The mother sought costs of approximately $188,000 on a full indemnity basis, citing the father's unreasonable behaviour and her offers to settle.

The court found both parties engaged in some unreasonable behaviour and that the mother's offers did not trigger the cost consequences of Rule 18.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable by the father at $55,000.

The parties separated after a short marriage and cohabitation of 45 months.

The father sought shared decision-making responsibility and a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making and a specific parenting schedule, citing a history of family violence.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence through a pattern of coercive control and inability to manage anger, making shared decision-making inappropriate.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility and the children's primary residence, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, lump sum spousal support of $2,750, and the full presumptive equalization payment of $211,000, finding that the amount was not unconscionable despite the short cohabitation.

Following a trial where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Winnipeg, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought $33,500, while the father argued costs should be fixed at $1,000 due to divided success and his limited ability to pay as an ODSP recipient.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and acted reasonably.

Taking into account the father's financial circumstances and the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000, payable in monthly installments of $300.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking permission to relocate the parties' ten-year-old child from London, Ontario to Winnipeg, Manitoba, where her new husband had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care and decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that the move was in the child's best interests, as the mother had been the primary caregiver for most of the child's life and could provide a stable home.

The court permitted the relocation, ordered extended parenting time for the father during school holidays, and granted joint decision-making responsibility with final decision-making authority to the mother.

The mother applied for sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the father sought joint decision-making.

The parties had a turbulent relationship with a history of conflict and criminal charges.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate effectively made joint decision-making inappropriate, though the mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also imputed a part-time minimum wage income of $18,000 to the unemployed father and ordered him to pay $263 per month in child support, while rescinding his child support arrears.

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 applicant mother brought a motion for the return of the parties' six-year-old child from the respondent father in Nova Scotia to her care in Ontario.

The father had retained the child after a summer visit, citing concerns about the mother's new partner, who had a criminal record and history of substance abuse.

Following a previous interim order requiring evidence of the new partner's rehabilitation, the court reviewed the new evidence, which demonstrated the partner's prosocial behavior, sobriety, and positive relationship with the child.

The court found that the minimal risk of relapse was outweighed by the benefit of returning the child to his primary caregiver and ordered the child returned to the mother's care.

Following a motion regarding parenting time where the father was largely successful, he sought costs of $13,229.48.

The mother argued costs should be fixed at $4,500.

The court found the father was more successful and had made an offer to settle, whereas the mother had not.

However, the court found the father's counsel's docketed hours excessive.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $5,200 to the father.