Danielle Szandtner

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 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 applicant society sought an order for no further involvement regarding three children previously found in need of protection due to physical abuse by their parents.

The parents supported this, while the maternal grandparents, who cared for the oldest child, sought a supervision order and access to the younger siblings.

The court found that a further order was necessary to protect the children's sibling and extended family relationships, as the parents were unlikely to facilitate access due to religious differences and animosity.

The court ordered 12-month supervision orders placing the oldest child with the grandparents and the younger children with the parents, with specified sibling and grandparent access.

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.

The respondent father brought a motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of two parenting time orders due to missed access visits in 2020 and 2022.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found that while the orders were clear and the mother had knowledge of them, her non-compliance was not intentional or was justified by a legitimate excuse.

The missed visits in 2020 were explained by a misunderstanding of notice requirements, COVID-19 isolation directives, and the child's chronic skin condition.

The missed visits in 2022 were due to the eight-year-old child's strong resistance to overnight access, despite the mother's reasonable good faith efforts to facilitate the visits and seek therapeutic support.

The contempt motion was dismissed.