Carol A. Allen

The court granted summary judgment in a child protection proceeding, finding the child, T.O., in need of protection and placing her in the deemed custody of her father, J.O., with supervised access to her mother, B.R. The decision reviews the history of parental conflict, the mother’s mental health and repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, and the father’s progress in addressing his own issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the mother’s lack of insight and continued behaviour posed ongoing risk to the child.

This appeal concerned an order striking the appellant's pleadings in a family law application due to repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted his position, failed to consider alternative remedies, and did not account for his personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law and finding that, given the appellant's persistent failure to comply, striking the pleadings was an appropriate and necessary remedy under the Family Law Rules.

Following a trial to determine the value of the matrimonial home, the court assessed costs.

The applicant contended the home was worth $260,000, while the respondent valued it at $414,000.

The court determined the value to be $392,000, making the respondent the successful party.

As the applicant failed to beat the respondent's offers to settle and the respondent did not better her own offer, the court awarded the respondent costs representing 75 percent of her legal fees, totaling $14,682.25.

The parties disputed the value of their matrimonial home as of the valuation date.

The applicant's expert appraised the home at $260,000 using local comparables, while the respondent's expert appraised it at $414,000 using comparables from a wider geographic area and making adjustments.

The court preferred the methodology of the respondent's expert but applied a 20 percent discount to the adjustments to account for the subjectivity of appraisals, ultimately valuing the home at $392,000.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to increase his parenting time with the parties' three children to an equally shared schedule.

The respondent mother opposed, advocating for the continuation of the existing alternate weekend schedule.

The court, applying the recently amended Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to allocate parenting time on a "week-about" shared schedule.

The decision emphasized that a status quo unilaterally imposed by one parent is not a strict presumption and gave significant weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and the children's expressed wishes.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.

This costs endorsement followed a six-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent, Jessica Mary Baran, was largely successful in maintaining the status quo of alternating weekend and mid-week access and securing sole custody.

The court found the applicant's position on shared week-about custody unreasonable, which prolonged the trial.

Despite offers made by both parties not being fully bettered in all aspects, the court determined that the applicant should pay costs somewhat greater than partial indemnity due to his unreasonable stance on custody and access.

The respondent was awarded costs totaling $28,251 plus applicable HST.

The court determined custody and access for the parties' child, Bodhi.

The applicant sought joint custody with alternating weeks, while the respondent sought sole custody with the existing access schedule.

The court considered the applicant's history of domestic abuse and poor judgment regarding the child's health and exposure to an unregulated "Mars unit" treatment.

The respondent was found to be a caring, competent, and diligent parent.

The court granted sole custody and primary care to the respondent, with an adjusted access schedule for the applicant, and prohibited the applicant from using the "Mars unit" on the child.

The parties separated after a long relationship and marriage.

The applicant sought a 50% interest in the matrimonial home, which was solely in the respondent's name, equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had a 50% interest in the home by way of a resulting trust, as it was purchased with funds from a joint account.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes because he voluntarily took a promotion that reduced his income.

The court also awarded spousal support of $1.00 per month and resolved arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

This trial decision addresses financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, including equalization of net family properties, child support, spousal support, and retroactive support claims.

While custody was resolved, the court determined the equalization payment owed by the husband to the wife, established the parties' qualifying incomes for support purposes, and assessed the wife's entitlement to spousal support, including whether income should be imputed to her.

The court largely dismissed the wife's substantial claim for retroactive spousal support due to the payor's financial hardship and the claimant's insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency, but awarded adjusted retroactive child support based on the payor's actual income.

The applicant sought the return of her two-year-old son, Flynn, from the respondent under the Hague Convention, after the respondent removed the child from Denmark to Ontario without the applicant's consent.

The respondent relied on a "parenting plan" agreement, signed prior to their move to Denmark, which purported to grant him full custody and allow him to leave Denmark with the child.

The court found the agreement invalid as a cohabitation agreement dealing with custody, contrary to the Family Law Act, and also found it was signed under duress due to the applicant's desperate financial and career circumstances.

The court further ruled that the agreement could not displace the factual determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention.

Based on the parties' settled intention to reside in Denmark for the applicant's two-year employment contract, the respondent's actions to establish EU residency, and the family's routine in Denmark, the court determined that Flynn's habitual residence was Denmark.

Consequently, the child's removal was wrongful, and an order was issued for Flynn's forthwith return to Denmark.

The respondent, David Thomas McCombe, brought a motion seeking an order compelling the applicant, Laura Marie McCombe, to annually sign documentation for tax purposes regarding spousal support, child support, and Section 7 contributions.

The court granted the request for acknowledgements of spousal support, child support, and Section 7 expenses, including copies of receipts, with the caveat that the applicant should not incur out-of-pocket costs.

The motion was denied regarding documentation for fitness and medical expenses for the children, as the existing Final Order was deemed sufficient and the proposed wording was inappropriate.

Following a lengthy and acrimonious family law trial concerning custody and access to a young child, the court considered the best interests of the child under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The parties had an extensive litigation history marked by high conflict, numerous interim orders, and serious allegations, many of which were unsupported hearsay and therefore not relied upon.

An expert parenting capacity assessment recommended sole custody to the father, finding the parents incapable of effective co‑parenting and identifying significant concerns about the stability of the mother’s household and the safety risks posed by one sibling’s behavioural issues.

The court accepted the expert’s recommendations and concluded that joint or parallel parenting would not serve the child’s best interests.

Sole custody was awarded to the father with structured daytime access to the mother, while child support was deferred due to the mother’s financial circumstances.

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support and child support including section 7 expenses, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although success at trial was largely divided, the applicant had made a written offer to settle shortly before trial that was close to the outcome ultimately ordered.

The court held that while the offer did not satisfy the strict requirements for presumptive cost consequences under Family Law Rule 18(14), it could still be considered under Rule 18(16) when assessing costs.

Taking into account the divided success, the respondent’s limited ability to pay, and the policy objective of encouraging settlement offers, the court awarded nominal costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior orders seeking termination of child support for four adult children and termination of spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but held that the respondent remained entitled to spousal support on a needs basis due to significant income disparity and ongoing health issues.

Spousal support was continued at the previously ordered amount of $800 per month with a potential review after August 1, 2016.

Child support was terminated retroactively on different dates corresponding to the children’s completion of post-secondary education, and the applicant was entitled to credits for overpayments.

The court also found that spousal support ordered in 1998 remained separate from a later child support order, resulting in spousal support arrears of $79,807.32.

Following a custody and access trial and review of prior orders, the court considered whether custody of the child should remain with the mother, whether access terms should be varied, and whether the mother was in contempt of a prior order.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the mother had engaged in a sustained effort to frustrate the child’s relationship with the father, including unfounded allegations of abuse and breaches of access orders.

The court concluded that the father was more likely to facilitate the child’s relationship with both parents and that a change in custody was warranted.

Sole custody was therefore transferred to the father with structured access granted to the mother under geographic restrictions.

The court also found the mother in contempt of a prior telephone access order and awarded costs to the father.

On a family law motion involving multiple interim issues following separation, the court considered custody and access, spousal support, travel restrictions, financial disclosure, and ancillary matters.

The respondent sought sole custody or shared parenting, but the court declined to disturb the existing temporary status quo pending involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and fuller evidentiary development.

The court ordered mid‑range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, adjusted downward to account partially for the applicant’s ongoing expenses maintaining the former family home in another jurisdiction.

The court varied an earlier order to permit the parties to travel with the children within Canada and to Ohio, but declined broader international travel.

Mutual financial disclosure and other interim directions were also ordered.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion seeking production of various third‑party records relating to the parties’ children, including therapy, medical, school, and social service records.

The court adopted a procedure similar to that used in criminal third‑party records applications and ordered the records produced to the court in sealed envelopes for judicial review before any disclosure.

After reviewing the materials, the court prepared a judicial summary describing the contents to assist counsel in making submissions on whether disclosure to the requesting party should occur.

The decision outlines the categories of records received from multiple service providers and sets the matter down for a further hearing to determine disclosure.

The court also emphasized that family litigation should not proceed through endless motions and encouraged the parties to move toward trial in the children’s best interests.

Following a family law trial involving custody, access, support, equalization, and divorce, the court considered competing claims for costs.

The moving party, self-represented, sought significant reimbursement of expenses, while the responding party sought partial or substantial indemnity costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success at trial, the court held that neither party was clearly more successful.

The court also considered the financial circumstances of the self-represented party and the objectives of fairness and promoting cooperation between the parties.

In the circumstances, the court concluded that the fairest result was that each party bear their own costs.