C. Lafrenière

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time and shared decision-making responsibility for the parties' young child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, supervised parenting time for the father, and a final restraining order due to a history of family violence, alcohol abuse, and coercive control.

The court found the father engaged in a relentless campaign of harassment and threatening behaviour against the mother, her counsel, and various service providers.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered the father's parenting time to remain supervised indefinitely, granted a final restraining order against the father, and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

The applicant and respondent separated after a six-year marriage.

The matrimonial home was registered in the applicant's name alone.

The respondent remained in the home post-separation and claimed the parties had a verbal agreement that he would keep the house and pay the applicant $10,000 for her equity.

The applicant sought a sale of the property and equal division of the proceeds.

The court found no enforceable verbal agreement existed, as there was no part performance to take it outside the Statute of Frauds.

However, the court found the property was a joint family venture and granted the respondent a 50% interest by way of constructive trust, ordering the net sale proceeds to be divided equally.

The respondent, Zafar Ahmad, brought a motion to set aside a default order issued on January 17, 2020, in a family law application initiated by Maria Zia.

The court applied the established test for setting aside default judgments, which requires considering promptness in bringing the motion, a plausible excuse for the default, an arguable defence on the merits, good faith, potential prejudice to both parties, and the overall integrity of the administration of justice.

The court found that Zafar Ahmad only satisfied the promptness criterion, failing to provide an adequate explanation for his non-response to the application or to demonstrate an arguable defence with sufficient financial disclosure.

Consequently, the motion to set aside the default order was dismissed, and Maria Zia was deemed presumptively entitled to costs.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order for the immediate return of her two children, who had been unilaterally retained by the respondent father after an access visit.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the factors from *Thomas v. Wohleber*.

The court strongly condemned the father's self-help actions, noting his failure to seek judicial intervention despite serious allegations and his attempt to gain an advantage during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's care and granted a police enforcement order, emphasizing that unilateral changes to a long-standing status quo are not in the children's best interests.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order to enforce existing access arrangements and obtain make-up time, including a police enforcement clause, due to the respondent father's unilateral withholding of access.

The father brought a cross-motion to restrict the mother's access to video conferencing until counselling was completed, citing concerns about the mother's partner and the child's safety, despite a Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation not verifying his allegations.

The court found the mother's motion urgent, criticized the father's unilateral actions and his undermining of the child's relationship with the mother, and dismissed the father's cross-motion.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for two children.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's long-standing, unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues, and her failure to engage with services.

Relying on expert assessments indicating the children required stability and specialized care, the court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

Annette Walters sought full recovery costs against Derek Walters following a settlement of their family law matter.

The court found Derek's conduct, including unproven allegations of fraud, relentless pursuit of irrelevant disclosure, and withdrawal of an unequal division claim shortly before trial, constituted bad faith.

Annette's offers were close to the final settlement, while Derek's offers did not trigger costs consequences.

The court awarded Annette full recovery costs, finding Derek's actions unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The father brought a motion to change a final family law order seeking to reduce child support to reflect his current income, terminate spousal support, and compel the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances had occurred since the original order, which had imputed income to the father and granted the mother exclusive possession of the home for a fixed period.

The court found that the father had not demonstrated reasonable efforts to obtain higher‑paying employment in his field and had failed to establish any material change in circumstances.

The court also found no basis to vary the order granting exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The respondent mother commenced a custody application after relocating with the parties’ child from Hungary to Ontario.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention alleging the child was wrongfully retained in Canada and seeking an order for the child’s return to Hungary.

The court examined whether the child’s habitual residence remained Hungary or had changed following the parties’ joint relocation to Canada.

After reviewing the parties’ shared intentions, preparatory steps taken before leaving Hungary, and the family’s arrival at a refugee shelter to initiate residency processes, the court found the parents had a settled intention to abandon their Hungarian residence and establish a new life in Ontario.

Alternatively, even if the transition period initially left the child without a habitual residence, the evidence did not establish wrongful retention under the Hague Convention.

The application was dismissed and Ontario was held to be the proper forum for custody and access proceedings.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a shared parenting arrangement of approximately 50 percent of parenting time and a corresponding adjustment to child support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking continuation of the existing primary residence arrangement with defined access, contribution to s. 7 expenses, counselling for the children, and conduct orders.

The court found the parties unable to agree on the parenting schedule despite both asserting the status quo should continue pending trial.

The court therefore imposed an interim parenting schedule based on the father’s shift-work schedule while reserving determinations regarding primary residence, daycare expenses, and potential adjustment of child support to trial.

The court also ordered counselling, mutual non-disparagement provisions, and updated financial disclosure.