Cynthia Squire

The applicant, the great aunt of a 14-year-old child (S.K.), sought a final order for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for S.K. The respondent parents failed to file an Answer and did not attend the proceedings, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court found the conditions for an uncontested trial were met and, considering the child's best interests, granted the applicant's requests for primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The court also ordered virtual parenting time for the mother at the child's discretion and in-person parenting time for both parents at the applicant's discretion, in consultation with the child, to ensure safety.

Nominal costs of $1000 were awarded against the respondent parents.

This family law trial concerned a motion to change a prior custody order, with both parents seeking sole decision-making authority and primary residence of their two children.

The court found the respondent father incapable of meeting the children's educational, medical, and psychological needs, supporting their relationship with the mother, or communicating and cooperating on matters affecting them.

The father was found to have fostered a strong, unsubstantiated fear of the mother in the children.

In contrast, the applicant mother demonstrated a commitment to addressing her own mental health and tirelessly advocating for the children's well-being and access to services.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with the father's parenting time suspended and to continue as supervised, pending a further hearing to determine final parenting time.

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt for failing to facilitate his parenting time under a 2018 order.

The mother argued she had a legitimate excuse because the child was extremely resistant to attending the father's home, and police had declined to force the child to go.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the order by failing to bring a motion to change the parenting schedule sooner, it exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than make a formal finding of contempt, noting contempt is a remedy of last resort.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a 19-year religious marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making, child support, and spousal support, while the father sought joint decision-making and parenting time.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making due to the father's history of family violence, limited involvement, and poor communication.

The father was granted parenting time on Sundays.

The court imputed the father's income at $42,589 due to voluntary underemployment and ordered table child support.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support, but only a nominal amount of $1 per year was ordered because child support took priority.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought primary residence of their six-year-old child.

The mother, a general surgeon, had relocated to Kapuskasing for employment and sought to have the child reside primarily with her.

The father sought to have the child remain in Renfrew with him.

The court analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the mother to be more attuned to the child's needs and better equipped to support his relationships.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence be with the mother in Kapuskasing, with specified parenting time for the father.

The parties were involved in a high-conflict separation with allegations of abuse and parental alienation.

The mother sought interim parenting time, while the father sought sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found it premature to make parenting orders pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation and ordered reunification therapy.

The court also ordered the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, while ordering the father to pay retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionally to income.

This is a costs endorsement following the Applicant's successful motion to enforce a 2011 final order.

The Applicant sought costs on various bases, but the court found that her offer to settle lacked a meaningful element of compromise, thus not triggering enhanced costs recovery.

The court also noted that motions brought without notice generally do not expose the opposing party to costs liability.

While the Applicant's hourly rates were reasonable, the time spent was considered high for a short motion.

The court reiterated that partial recovery is the norm and impecuniosity is not a reason to deny costs.

Ultimately, the Applicant was awarded $3,000.00 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion for the return of T.G.M.C., an adult child with significant developmental challenges, to her primary care.

The Respondent had retained T.G.M.C. in his care, defying an existing sole custody order, arguing that the order was unenforceable as T.G.M.C. had turned 18 and that her return to in-class learning was not in her best interests due to health concerns.

The court found it had inherent jurisdiction over vulnerable adults and ordered the immediate return of T.G.M.C. to the Applicant's care, affirming the existing custody order's continued force.

The applicant mother brought a motion to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over custody and access of the parties' child, who had been living in India with his paternal grandparents since 2018.

The court found that because the parties were pursuing a divorce and both resided in Ontario, the Divorce Act superseded the Children's Law Reform Act, granting the court jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found that under the CLRA, the child's last habitual residence was with his parents in Ontario, also giving the court jurisdiction.

The applicant father successfully opposed the respondent mother's motion to temporarily relocate their child to Kapuskasing for her employment.

Following the dismissal of the relocation motion, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $11,245.65.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party but noted the respondent had some success regarding parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $8,500, noting the respondent should be sanctioned with substantial indemnity costs for a portion of the proceedings due to seeking orders post-hearing without a notice of motion or supporting evidence.

The mother, a general surgeon, brought a motion to temporarily relocate the parties' five-year-old child to Kapuskasing for alternating months while she completed a one-year employment contract.

The parents previously shared joint decision-making and equal residential parenting in Renfrew.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the extensive travel and disruption of attending two different schools would not be in the child's best interests.

The child was ordered to remain in the father's primary care in Renfrew for the duration of the contract, with generous parenting time for the mother.

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville brought a motion within a status review application seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The mother opposed the motion, supported by the father.

The Society alleged ongoing neglect, unhygienic living conditions, lack of supervision, domestic violence, and non-compliance with previous supervision orders.

However, since being served with the application, the mother had made significant positive changes, including separating from the father, moving to a safer home with a supportive cousin, and engaging with community and medical services for the children.

Applying Section 113(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which requires children to remain in current care unless their best interests "require" a change, the court found that while the Society's concerns were valid historically, the recent improvements meant that removal was not currently required.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to change a 2009 family court order relating to child support, income determination, and section 7 expenses for two children.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the respondent’s employment income where the respondent failed to provide financial disclosure but declined to impute additional income based on speculative evidence.

The court also rejected certain claimed extracurricular and counselling expenses as section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The order was varied to adjust child support and to establish each parent’s proportionate contribution toward post-secondary education expenses after a deemed child contribution.

Ongoing disclosure obligations and payment mechanisms were also ordered.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

Multiple court orders had required financial disclosure and the retention of a business valuator, including a consent order providing that the respondent’s pleadings would be struck upon non‑compliance.

The respondent admitted failing to meet the timelines and only attempted partial compliance after being served with the motion.

The court held that the respondent’s conduct constituted persistent and deliberate disregard for court orders and the litigation process.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under the Family Law Rules, the court found the circumstances sufficiently egregious and ordered the respondent’s Answer and Claim struck.