Danielle Szandtner

Trial concerning the applicant mother's request to relocate with the parties' two young children (ages approximately 1.5 years and 7 months) to the Philippines, opposed by the respondent father who sought unsupervised and eventually shared parenting time.

The court found the mother had been the children's primary caregiver since birth, that the father had failed to provide any financial support for over a year despite court orders, and that there was a power imbalance constituting family violence through financial abuse and the mother's tenuous immigration status.

The court authorized the relocation, finding the mother's plan for the Philippines was child-focused and fiscally responsible, offering family support, stable housing, healthcare, and employment prospects unavailable to her in Canada.

The father was granted virtual parenting time, annual visits to the Philippines, and annual in-person visits when the mother returns to Toronto with the children.

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, specific parenting time, travel/document orders, and special/extraordinary expenses for the three children of the marriage.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and broader travel rights.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding poor communication and a lack of mutual trust and respect between the parents.

The father's parenting time was limited to day visits, with overnights at the mother's discretion, due to lack of evidence for overnight accommodation.

The mother was granted authority to obtain children's documents and travel internationally without the father's consent, while the father requires the mother's written consent for international travel, citing a credible risk of non-return to Canada.

The father was ordered to pay s.7 arrears and 82% of ongoing special and extraordinary expenses.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and child support.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and no child support.

The court found it in the child's best interests to be in the primary care of the father with sole decision-making responsibility, citing the mother's emotional fragility, contempt for the father, unwillingness to cooperate, and attempts to alienate the child from the father.

The court also imputed income to the father for retroactive child support from the date of separation but terminated ongoing child support due to the father having primary residence and not seeking support from the mother.

The Jewish Family and Child Services (JFCS) brought a summary judgment motion for extended society care of the child D.S. and for specific access terms with the mother, Z.Y. The mother, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, did not oppose extended care but made submissions on access.

The father, B.S., was in default.

The court granted the JFCS's request for extended care, finding no genuine issue for trial given the mother's persistent untreated mental health issues and the child's thriving in care.

The court also granted access at the society's discretion, with the child as the sole access holder, and allowed the society to obtain legal documents for the child without parental consent.

This was a trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for two children.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, while the mother sought the same.

The court found a power imbalance in the relationship favoring the father and noted the mother's consistent role as primary caregiver and her proactive efforts in securing supports for the children, particularly for the son's hearing disability.

The court criticized the father's unilateral actions, including relocating the children without consent, severing the mother's contact, and neglecting health issues.

The court ordered the children's primary residence to be with the mother, granted her sole decision-making authority with a duty to consult, and established a detailed parenting time schedule for the father.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on his imputed income, and extraordinary expenses were to be shared proportionately.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order to place two children (J.W. Jr. and A.D.) in the permanent care and custody of a kin caregiver (C.R.) under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Society also sought orders regarding access for the mother (S.D.) and fathers, and the kin caregiver's ability to secure documentation and travel with the children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children, but did not file affidavit evidence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's untreated and recurring mental health issues posed a high and unmitigated risk to the children, and her plan of care was not in the children's best interests.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, emphasizing the children's need for permanency, their special needs, and their Métis cultural connection with the kin caregiver.

The respondent father sought to decrease child support based on reduced income, citing COVID-19 impacts.

The applicant mother cross-moved to increase child support retroactively, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed and seeking contribution to extraordinary expenses for their child's competitive gymnastics.

The court found the father intentionally underemployed, imputed an income of $86,380 per year, and ordered child support to be increased to $804 per month, retroactive to October 1, 2021.

The court also ordered the parties to share extraordinary expenses proportionately from the same date and set a payment plan for arrears.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of a child, O.C-J., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a temporary supervision order placing the child with the mother C.C-J., a position supported by C.C-J. herself, the child's aunt, and the child's counsel.

The other mother, S.C-J., sought placement with the aunt.

The court found that returning the child to S.C-J.'s care posed a risk of harm, given the child's expressed desire not to return and suicidal ideation.

The court determined that placing the child with C.C-J. under supervision was the least intrusive and most appropriate option, aligning with the child's wishes and mitigating identified risks, despite historical mental health concerns for C.C-J. and alienation fears raised by S.C-J.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2016 child support order, seeking termination of support and rescission of outstanding arrears, or alternatively, imputation of minimum wage from 2016.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's age and medical issues, but rejected his claim of non-service of the original application.

The court imputed income to the father from February 1, 2021, and adjusted child support accordingly.

However, the court refused to rescind arrears, citing the father's blameworthy conduct (abandoning children, failing to make payments or provide disclosure) and lack of full financial disclosure, ordering the arrears to be paid monthly.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child and spousal support terms from a 2011 order.

Spousal support had already been terminated.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's income but limited the retroactive reduction of child support to the date of formal notice (April 2022) due to the father's blameworthy conduct and lack of financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $52,000 to the father and ordered child support of $479 per month.

Outstanding arrears were to be paid at $150 per month, with a default clause for late payments.

This trial concerned parenting time and child support for the parties' five-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought continued supervised parenting time for the respondent father due to mental health concerns and an imputed income of $90,000 for child support.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and a lower imputed income.

The court found the mother's account of the father's mental health issues and family violence credible.

It ordered continued supervised access with a progressive plan contingent on the father's psychiatric evaluation and compliance with treatment.

The court imputed an income of $90,000 to the father and ordered child support retroactive to the date of separation, along with significant arrears.

This case concerns a child protection application regarding two children apprehended from their mother's care due to neglect.

The Children's Aid Society and the mother sought a supervision order for the children to return to the mother's care, while the father and paternal grandmother sought a permanent custody order in favour of the grandmother.

The court found that the mother had significantly addressed the initial protection concerns, engaged consistently with support services, and demonstrated improved parenting capacity and stable housing.

Conversely, the father and grandmother exhibited a lack of insight into risks posed by the father's criminal history and displayed persistent negative attitudes towards the mother, which could hinder the children's relationship with her.

The court ultimately determined that it was in the children's best interests to return to the mother's care under a six-month supervision order, with specified terms for access by the father and grandmother.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Toronto after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated them to Montreal without notice or consent.

The mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the father had acquiesced or unduly delayed.

She also raised allegations of family violence.

The court found that Ontario retained habitual residence, rejected the mother's claims of acquiescence and undue delay, and determined that the alleged family violence did not constitute compelling circumstances to justify the unauthorized relocation.

Applying established legal principles for relocation, the court ordered the children's return to Toronto, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice requirements and discouraging self-help measures in parenting disputes.

The applicant mother brought a motion in the Ontario Court of Justice to lift the automatic stay of proceedings, which was triggered by the respondent father's commencement of a divorce application in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father's Superior Court application sought divorce, parenting time, equalization of net family property, and sale of family property.

The mother argued that the stay should be lifted due to the father's bad faith, prejudice to the children and herself, and waste of court resources.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by failing to file documents, breaching disclosure and child support orders, not seeking consent for property sale, and delaying the case.

The court determined that lifting the stay was in the children's best interests and served the administration of justice by avoiding duplication of efforts and allowing the OCJ to finalize issues it had extensively case-managed.

The trial concerned child support arrangements for the parties' daughter, specifically the start date for child support and the amount of arrears.

The mother sought retroactive support from the child's birth in 2012, while the father argued for the date of service of the application in 2019.

The court applied the Colucci framework for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date to be August 6, 2019, as this was when the mother first gave effective notice.

The court declined to depart from this date, considering the mother's significant delay in seeking support and the undue hardship a further retroactive order would cause the father, who was a full-time student with other children and student debt.

The court quantified the arrears based on the father's income from August 6, 2019, and set out a payment plan.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final custody order for the child to her father, S.J., under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother, A.P., opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care or more expansive unsupervised parenting time, arguing that genuine issues required a trial.

The father and the child's counsel (OCL) consented to the CCAS's proposed order.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered the child to remain in the father's primary care with sole decision-making authority, and specified supervised parenting time for the mother.

This trial determined retroactive and ongoing child support obligations.

The court established the separation date as July 2019 and set the presumptive date for child support at December 11, 2019, declining earlier retroactivity due to the payor's significant pre-application contributions.

Income was imputed to the payor for ongoing support, acknowledging that pending criminal charges (later acquitted) were a valid, non-self-induced barrier to employment during a specific period.

Arrears were calculated based on CERB income, and ongoing support was ordered based on a reasonable imputed income post-acquittal.

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 case was a trial concerning parenting and child support for the parties' five-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought final orders for primary residence, sole decision-making authority, and retroactive child support.

The respondent father sought primary residence with him, sole decision-making (with an exception for religion), shared parenting time, and no ongoing or retroactive child support.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's primary care with the mother having sole decision-making authority.

The court imputed the father's income due to inadequate financial disclosure and ordered retroactive child support and ongoing support, along with a specific parenting time schedule.