Clifton Leung

The applicant sought unsupervised parenting time with his daughter after a lengthy absence.

The respondent opposed, citing concerns about the applicant's mental health, alleged sexual addiction, and past incidents of family violence, arguing for supervised access.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, found that the respondent's concerns did not justify supervised access or a condition of counselling.

The motion for parenting time was granted, with a gradual re-integration schedule ordered, and an intermediary appointed for exchanges.

The respondent's request for supervised access was denied.

This case concerns a dispute over parenting time for a child with complex special needs.

The applicant mother sought discretionary parenting time for the respondent father, citing his history of abusive communications, lack of insight into his behavior, and failure to engage with the child's professional supports.

The father sought a specified, graduated parenting schedule.

The Ontario Court of Justice, prioritizing the child's best interests, found the father's conduct constituted family violence, including cyber-bullying, and demonstrated an inability to cooperate or meet the child's needs for stability and a calm environment.

The court dismissed the father's request and ordered that his parenting time be at the mother's discretion, contingent on the child's wishes and needs, and outlined steps the father must take for future consideration of a specified schedule.

The Father sought an urgent ex parte motion to prevent the Mother from removing the child, alleging passport forgery and intent to abscond.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for support.

The court found the Father's allegations false and his income evidence misleading, constituting bad faith under Family Law Rule 24(8).

The Mother was largely successful, obtaining a non-removal order (by consent, from Ontario, not just Toronto), and interim child and spousal support.

The court awarded the Mother $17,000 in costs, finding the Father's conduct warranted sanctions.

This uncontested trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for two children.

The court struck the respondent father's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and failure to provide disclosure.

The applicant mother sought final parenting orders, including sole custody and permission to obtain government documentation and travel with the children without the father's consent.

She also sought retroactive child support from June 1, 2015, and imputation of income to the father due to his intentional under-employment and blameworthy conduct.

The court granted the mother sole custody, the requested travel and documentation permissions, ordered retroactive child support of $40,413, and ongoing child support based on an imputed income of $45,000.

The court also ordered the father to pay additional costs of $4,200 and required him to seek leave of the court for any future proceedings due to his flagrant disregard of court orders.

Following a previous order striking the respondent father's Answer/Claim on September 4, 2020, the court provided him with an opportunity to reinstate his pleading upon meeting specified conditions: payment of $3,000 and provision of detailed financial disclosure within 45 days.

The father failed to comply with any of these conditions.

The applicant mother sought directions on how to proceed.

The court determined that the father would not be permitted to participate further in the case, finding that his continued defiance of court orders and failure to demonstrate good faith made it contrary to the administration of justice to allow his participation, particularly given that the children's primary residence with the mother was already established and not a contentious issue.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's September 4, 2020 decision granting the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's Answer/Claim.

The applicant sought costs of $2,581.20.

The respondent did not make written costs submissions.

The court fixed costs at $2,400, payable immediately, finding that the applicant's offer to settle was as favourable as the motion result and that the respondent had acted unreasonably by breaching multiple court orders and failing to remedy those breaches despite a lengthy adjournment.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's amended Answer/Claim due to his deliberate breach of multiple court orders, including orders to pay child support, pay two costs orders, and provide financial disclosure.

The father did not attend the motion hearing.

The court found that the father had deliberately breached the orders and had not provided reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The court struck the father's amended Answer/Claim but permitted him to restore it upon satisfaction of conditions, including payment of $3,000 and provision of updated financial disclosure within 45 days.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings in family law cases involving children should only occur in exceptional circumstances, but found such circumstances existed given the father's open defiance of court orders and the settled nature of the parenting arrangements.

This is a costs endorsement following cross-motions concerning the temporary primary residence and schooling of a 13-year-old child.

The court ordered that the child have temporary primary residence with the mother and attend school in the mother's neighbourhood, granting generous temporary access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $3,824.20, while the father requested no costs be ordered.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial result and that the father acted unreasonably by being unresponsive to settlement discussions.

Costs were fixed at $3,000, payable at $150 per month commencing November 1, 2019.