Carole Curtis

A father sought to change a consent custody and access order regarding his son, seeking sole custody and restricting the mother's access.

The parents had moved to Barcelona, Spain with their son to attend a prestigious football school.

The mother subsequently refused to return to Spain and withheld the child.

The father brought motions in both Ontario and Spain.

The court determined that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to change, as the child was habitually resident in Spain.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and stayed the Ontario motion, reverting to the original consent order of February 2013 as a holding order pending resolution in Spain.

Two children who were Crown wards brought motions for temporary openness orders to maintain contact with their biological mother following their placement for adoption with their maternal grandmother and her partner.

The mother also brought applications for openness orders.

The court dismissed the children's motions for temporary openness orders, finding that while the children desired contact with their mother, such contact was not in their best interests given the mother's demonstrated inability to support the adoption placement, her undermining behaviour toward the adoptive family, and the destabilizing effect visits had on the children's emotional well-being and school behaviour.

The court emphasized that openness orders must prioritize the security and stability of the child in the adoptive home.

A nine-day trial concerning a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that a three-year-old child was in need of protection and sought a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father opposed this and sought placement of the child in his care, subject to a supervision order.

The mother supported the father's plan.

The court found the child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Act based on the mother's past parenting history, her current level of functioning following a severe aneurysm, the father's insistence on parenting with the mother, and the father's failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency.

The court ordered crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the father's pattern of non-compliance, dishonesty, and inability to work cooperatively with professionals regarding the child's complex medical and developmental needs, including autism.

The father brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order, seeking to terminate support entirely as all three children were allegedly independent adults.

The mother responded by seeking dismissal of the father's motion and requesting retroactive adjustments to the table amount of child support based on the father's increased income, as well as retroactive contributions to section 7 special expenses (braces, dental care, and post-secondary tuition).

The court found that the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by consistently failing to pay support as ordered, failing to disclose income increases, and refusing to contribute to special expenses despite having the means to do so.

The court determined that two of the three children remained eligible for support during certain periods and ordered retroactive adjustments to the table amount and contributions to section 7 expenses.

This is a costs decision following a nine-day trial concerning custody, access, and child support of a five-year-old child.

The applicant was entirely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody with supervised access for the respondent, child support, and various ancillary orders.

The respondent conceded the applicant's success but argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding that while the issues were straightforward, the respondent's unreasonable and obstructive conduct during trial, combined with his aggressive and confrontational demeanor, justified a costs award despite the absence of a formal offer to settle.

The mother brought a motion to change a default order made in 2011 that had reduced child support from $1,400 to $281 per month.

The father had obtained the default order on an unopposed motion after the mother failed to respond.

The mother sought to reinstate higher child support based on the father's actual financial capacity, arguing the 2011 order was based on incomplete and misleading information.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose that one child had autism requiring therapy, that his wife supported him, and that he maintained a luxurious lifestyle.

The court set aside the arbitration clause in the original consent order and ordered child support of $1,400 per month retroactive to July 1, 2013, based on imputed annual income of $115,000.

A nine-day trial concerning custody, access, and child support of a five-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, supervised access for the father, and child support.

The father sought sole or joint custody, equal time-sharing or liberal access, and no child support.

The court found that the child made credible disclosures of sexual abuse by the father, though criminal charges were withdrawn.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the father at a supervised access centre for two hours every other weekend, and determined child support obligations with arrears.

The court emphasized the high-conflict nature of the relationship and the father's inability to prioritize the child's best interests.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to reinstate the respondent father's pleadings on financial issues in a family law application.

The father's pleadings had been struck for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

After the father substantially complied with the disclosure order, he brought a motion to reinstate his pleadings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father had made more than token efforts to comply and that justice required the matter to proceed to trial on the merits.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and refused to consent to reinstatement despite the father's repeated requests and offers to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably in refusing to consent and awarded costs to the father.

A 12-day trial in a child protection application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (B.F.D.) nearly three years old.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father consented to both the protection finding and crown wardship.

The mother opposed the application and sought the child's return to her care, subject to a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and (g) of the CFSA based on risk of physical and emotional harm.

The court made an order for crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the mother's persistent non-compliance, uncooperative behavior, substance abuse, anger management issues, and lack of insight into the protection concerns.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The father sought to reduce child support for a 14-year-old child, but the motion was dismissed as no material change in circumstances had been established.

The mother, who was unrepresented at the motion, sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite her lack of legal representation, recognizing that unrepresented litigants may recover meaningful costs to encourage settlements and discourage inappropriate behaviour.

The court awarded costs of $2,760 all-inclusive, calculated at $150 per hour for the mother's time, plus lost wages and disbursements.

Motion to change child support provisions of a separation agreement.

The mother sought retroactive adjustment of table amount child support based on the father's increased income from 2010 onwards, and contribution to section 7 special expenses (university tuition, books, and medical/dental expenses) for 2011-2013.

The father opposed the motion and sought termination of support based on the child's unilateral termination of their relationship.

The court found a change in circumstances, determined the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income increases and adjust support accordingly, and ordered retroactive adjustment of table support from 2010 and section 7 expenses from 2011.

The court rejected the father's request to terminate support.

The respondent father brought a motion to reinstate his pleadings on financial issues after they were struck for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The applicant mother opposed reinstatement, arguing the father remained in non-compliance with both the disclosure order and child support obligations.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the father's disclosure had not been perfect, his efforts to comply after the initial striking order were more than token attempts.

The court determined that justice would be best served by allowing the father to participate at trial on the merits, consistent with the principle that adversarial proceedings should be maintained whenever possible.

The court considered five sentencing cases involving offences committed after October 24, 2013, when amendments to section 737 of the Criminal Code came into effect.

These amendments made the victim fine surcharge (VFS) mandatory, removed judicial discretion in its imposition, increased the percentage calculation from 15% to 30% of any fine imposed, and increased the quantum where no fine was imposed.

The court held that the mandatory VFS provisions constitute a breach of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (cruel and unusual punishment) and potentially section 7, rendering them unconstitutional.

The court declined to impose the mandatory VFS in all five cases and waived it entirely.

The court found that the mandatory provisions, when applied to impoverished offenders receiving social assistance benefits, result in sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the offences and offenders' circumstances, forcing individuals to choose between purchasing food and paying the surcharge.

A ten-day family law trial addressing custody, access, and child support for three children.

The father sought joint custody, specified access, and no child support obligation while in school.

The mother sought sole custody, supervised access, and retroactive child support from the date of separation.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, established regular weekend access for the father in Toronto, and imputed income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, ordering $591 per month retroactive to August 2008.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by not paying support and taking the position he had no obligation while in school.

The court also imposed restrictions on future litigation and criticized the conduct of both parties and their counsel during the trial.

A child protection trial concerning two young children (ages 5 and 4) where the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's serious mental illness (schizophrenia), which resulted in multiple involuntary hospitalizations and periods of inability to care for the children.

Although the mother demonstrated some mental health stabilization and was cooperative with services, the court found she lacked insight into her condition, had no adequate safety plan for potential relapses, and demonstrated inadequate parenting skills despite therapeutic intervention.

The court ordered the children to be made crown wards without access, finding this was in the children's best interests given their need for certainty, stability, and permanence.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a child protection application regarding four children.

The applicant sought protection findings under the Child and Family Services Act and a disposition of crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court found overwhelming evidence of physical and emotional abuse of the children by the parents, including detailed and consistent disclosures by the children to multiple professionals, medical evidence, and psychological assessments diagnosing three of the four children with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and made orders for crown wardship without access to the parents.

This is a costs decision in a motion to change a separation agreement regarding spousal support.

The husband brought a motion to end spousal support of $1,000 per month, while the wife sought to increase it.

Both motions were dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the wife, finding the husband's conduct unreasonable in bringing the motion without adequate legal basis and in refusing reasonable settlement offers for an extended period.

The court awarded partial costs of $10,000 all-inclusive, enforceable as support, and imposed a condition that the husband obtain court permission before bringing any future motion to change.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a consent custody order.

The mother sought supervised access for the father and other modifications, while the father sought joint custody.

The litigation was acrimonious and protracted over approximately sixteen months, with both parents making unreasonable claims.

The mother was partially successful, the father was partially successful, and the matter ultimately settled.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite divided success, based on the father's unreasonable conduct, his failure to make a timely settlement offer, and his pursuit of an unjustifiable claim for joint custody.

The court rejected the father's argument that inability to pay should shield him from a costs award.

Motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order for crown wardship without access.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The father consented to the orders sought.

The court found that the mother's cognitive limitations, inability to provide adequate instrumental care, difficulty meeting her own needs, and lack of demonstrated improvement despite years of involvement with child protection services established a clear case for crown wardship.

The mother's plan for care, involving a recently engaged partner whom she had known for only a few months, lacked credibility and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted summary judgment and made the child a crown ward without access.

This is a child protection trial concerning a child (A.) born in 2010, nearly three years old at the time of trial.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a crown wardship order with no access for purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed this and sought the child's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The mother consented to a protection finding under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm.

The child had been apprehended twice: first in October 2010 when the mother experienced a mental health crisis, and second in March 2012 when the mother's mental health again deteriorated.

The court found that while the mother had made significant personal gains and her mental health was currently stable with psychiatric treatment, she had not made adequate gains in her parenting abilities.

The court determined that the child required a permanent, stable placement and ordered crown wardship with no access to facilitate adoption.