Darlene Rites

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses parenting and child support issues following the separation of V.T. and L.V.R. The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, retroactive child support, and ongoing section 7 expenses, while the father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time.

The court found that the mother should have sole decision-making responsibility and that the father's parenting time schedule remain as is, due to the lack of sufficient cooperation for equal sharing.

The court imputed income to the father higher than reported, including cash income and grossed-up amounts for unpaid taxes, resulting in retroactive child support arrears of $30,158.

The decision also outlines detailed parenting time schedules, holiday arrangements, travel provisions, and financial disclosure obligations.

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the two younger children (aged 10 and 14) and to remove supervision.

The applicant mother opposed immediate overnights but agreed to increased supervised time.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) provided the children's views, which favored a gradual increase in parenting time with continued supervision, especially given the respondent's mental health history.

The court adopted a graduated schedule, increasing unsupervised time incrementally, but denied the respondent's request for immediate alternating weekends or overnights, emphasizing the children's best interests and their preference for a slower pace.

The applicant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs.

This is a costs decision following a temporary motion where the applicant (mother) was successful in obtaining child and spousal support based on the respondent's (father's) imputed income.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable due to a lack of complete financial disclosure and the filing of improper affidavits.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments to defer the costs decision pending an appeal and to reduce costs due to the applicant's legal aid status, affirming that legally aided clients are treated the same as other litigants for costs purposes.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his four-year-old daughter to the Azores, Portugal.

The respondent mother had travelled to Canada with the child for a temporary visit but refused to return, remaining in Canada with her new partner.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Portugal, the father possessed and exercised rights of custody through his joint decision-making authority over overseas travel, and he had not acquiesced to the retention.

The court rejected the mother's defence that returning the child posed a grave risk of harm due to alleged domestic violence, finding her evidence lacked credibility and did not meet the stringent threshold.

The child was ordered returned to Portugal.

Application for child and spousal support following separation.

The applicant, a former homemaker, sought child support and spousal support from the respondent, a roofer.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, finding the respondent's income should be based on current earnings rather than a three-year average that included an anomalous high-income year.

The applicant's income was determined based on her full-time employment only, as she was justified in relinquishing secondary employment to spend time with the child.

The court ordered retroactive child support from the date of separation and prospective spousal support at the upper end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

In a family law trial following a 28-year marriage, the court determined the parties' respective incomes for the purposes of child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed and sought to impute additional income to the other.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $70,000 after disallowing several business expenses, and imputed the respondent's income at $22,500 due to unsubstantiated expenses and cash income.

The court ordered ongoing child support, retroactive child support subject to a $23,000 credit for the applicant, and ongoing non-compensatory spousal support of $250 per month, but declined to order retroactive spousal support.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision on child and spousal support obligations.

The court ordered the father to pay child support, spousal support, and arrears retroactive to January 1, 2015.

The mother sought costs of $6,000, while the father claimed inability to pay.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle met all requirements under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and was significantly more favorable than the father's offer.

The court awarded costs of $5,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $150 per month starting November 1, 2016, with acceleration provisions for non-payment.

A trial decision addressing child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses following the separation of the parties.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's income at $74,261 and requested retroactive child and spousal support.

The respondent sought to impute his income at $56,817 and the applicant's income at $30,000, and opposed spousal support.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed after voluntarily taking a lower-paying position and imputed his income at $74,261.

The court awarded child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, with retroactive application to January 1, 2015.

The respondent was found to owe significant arrears.

In an uncontested family trial following separation and allegations of long‑standing domestic abuse, the court determined custody, support, property division, and related relief.

The applicant was granted final custody with supervised access to the respondent and a continuing restraining order.

The court valued the matrimonial home at $560,000, equalized the parties’ net family property, and ordered a vesting of title in the applicant subject to payments to the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional unemployment and awarded lump sum child support to secure future support obligations.

Additional relief included exclusive possession of the home, a vesting order, and costs.