Darlene Summers

The applicant father brought a motion to strike the respondent mother's Answer due to her willful breach of multiple disclosure and costs orders.

The respondent failed to participate in the motion.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be exceptional, given the financial issues, the children's support, and the respondent's abandonment of her financial obligations.

The motion was granted, striking the respondent's Answer and claims, and the applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs, allowing the case to proceed to an uncontested trial on financial issues.

This case involved a trial of parenting issues between separated parents.

The father sought equal residential parenting time and sole decision-making, while the mother sought to maintain the existing alternating weekend arrangement and sole decision-making.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer represented the children.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Divorce Act, noting the mother's emotional struggles and influence on the children's views.

The court ordered an equal residential schedule (2:2:5:5 rotation) and split decision-making authority, with the father having authority over health care and other matters, and the mother over education.

This costs endorsement follows a prior decision where the Intervenors' motion to stay proceedings against the Respondent, William Ndze Fuhgeh, was granted.

The Intervenors sought full indemnity costs, while Mr. Fuhgeh sought costs for minor successes on his cross-motion.

The court found the Intervenors were the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs, despite not achieving their primary relief.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Intervenors, reducing their claim for time spent on the unsuccessful dismissal argument and preparation for a one-hour motion.

Mr. Fuhgeh's request for costs was denied, and his affidavit regarding financial hardship was not accepted as a shield against costs.

The Intervenors moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the respondent's ongoing motions to set aside prior orders, citing unpaid costs awards against the respondent.

The applicant, Ms. Bernard, supported the stay.

The respondent brought a cross-motion challenging the scope of the Intervenors' motion and seeking a response to a Request to Admit.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his requests were not persuasive or for the current forum.

The court declined to dismiss the respondent's originating motions, noting it was unusual for an intervenor to seek such relief and that proper procedure was not followed by the primary parties.

However, the court granted the stay of the respondent's motions until all outstanding costs awards were paid, citing the respondent's failure to obey orders and the unfairness of requiring parties to incur further costs.

This costs endorsement arose from three events in a family law matter where the respondent mother removed children from the matrimonial home and withheld them.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion, a substantive motion for interim decision-making and parenting, and a review motion.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party on the primary issues of decision-making and parenting time.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable, and she failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle from the applicant.

Considering the applicant's success, the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, and the applicant's offer to settle, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $17,250 to the applicant.

The respondent, Ms. Switzer, brought a motion seeking relief regarding two Requests to Admit served by the applicant, Mr. Switzer.

She sought confirmation that her responses were timely or, alternatively, permission to withdraw any deemed admissions and an extension of time.

The applicant opposed, seeking to rely on the deemed admissions.

The court found the first Request to Admit non-compliant due to lack of signature and the second Request to Admit's response was deemed timely due to delayed receipt.

The respondent's motion was granted, allowing withdrawal of deemed admissions and extending time for response.

This costs endorsement followed a four-day family law trial concerning parenting and support issues.

Both parties sought costs, arguing greater success and the benefit of their offers to settle.

The court found that success at trial was divided, with neither party's offer to settle being more favourable than the outcome.

The court also determined that neither party's conduct rose to the level of unreasonable or bad faith to warrant a costs order against them.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding this outcome reasonable and proportionate given the divided success.

The applicant father sought increased access, including overnight, for his two children (Ryan, 4, and Liam, 18 months), and to continue mid-week access.

The respondent mother opposed overnight access, citing Ryan's special needs (autism) and the father's health/lifestyle concerns.

She also sought temporary custody, child support, s. 7 expenses, and income imputation.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody and primary residence by consent.

The court found it in the children's best interests to have more meaningful, gradually increasing parenting time with the father, including eventual alternate weekend overnights.

The court ordered retroactive child support based on the father's 2018 income and proportionate sharing of future daycare costs for Liam.

The mother's request to impute income was declined for the interim motion due to insufficient evidence and late disclosure.

The father was also ordered to maintain life insurance as security for child support.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking to prohibit the applicant father from taking their 9-year-old child on a planned cottage vacation with extended family due to COVID-19 health risks.

The mother argued the father's plan to merge three households into a social circle was non-compliant with provincial guidelines and posed an unnecessary risk to the child and herself, given her asthma.

The father opposed, asserting his plan was safe and compliant.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the father's social circle plan lacked sufficient information regarding all participants' social contacts and failed to account for the separated parents' need to include each other in their household bubbles before expanding.

The court concluded the potential health risks outweighed the benefits of the vacation, particularly considering the mother's heightened vulnerability due to asthma.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought an early status review application concerning the child E. The mother, A.H., brought a motion for in-person access in her home, which was opposed by the Society and the father, K.T. The court granted the mother's motion for in-person access, subject to extensive supervision and conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol use while caregiving, contact with her ex-partner Mr. P., and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

The court found that the mother had not been transparent about her relationship with Mr. P. and had not strictly adhered to COVID-19 protocols, but that identified risks could be mitigated by supervision.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and various financial orders, including retroactive child support and reinstatement of arrears, as well as a restraining order and passport authorization.

The respondent father sought joint custody and expanded overnight parenting time.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, requiring her to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted expanded overnight access.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes and reinstated child support arrears by setting aside a previous order.

The mother's requests for passport authorization and a restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and an amending agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging lack of financial disclosure, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found that while the respondent failed to provide full financial disclosure regarding his businesses, the applicant understood the agreements, did not diligently pursue disclosure, and received substantial benefits.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside either agreement, upholding both domestic contracts.

Consequently, the applicant's corollary claims for equalization of net family property, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support were dismissed.

The respondent's claim for child support was also dismissed as the agreements were upheld.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for the child, G., for purposes of adoption.

The respondent mother, K.S., opposed the motion, arguing the evidentiary record was insufficient.

The court found that the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's enduring mental and physical health challenges, inability to provide self-care, lack of insight into protection concerns, inconsistent access attendance, and an unsafe home environment.

The court granted the CAS's motion for extended society care, concluding that no less intrusive disposition was in the child's best interests, but also ordered that the mother shall have access to the child, and the child shall have access to the mother, with the specifics at the Society's discretion.

The applicants, Ms. Stewart and Ms. Bernard, brought motions for security for costs against the respondent, Mr. Fuhgeh, within his motions to set aside previous default orders.

The applicants argued that Mr. Fuhgeh had unpaid costs orders, was impecunious, and that his motions were a waste of time or a nuisance.

The court acknowledged Mr. Fuhgeh's impecuniosity and the unpaid costs, satisfying a factor under Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court found that Mr. Fuhgeh's allegations of fraud, concealed conflict of interest, and judicial bias were serious and touched on the administration of justice, requiring a full hearing.

Granting security for costs would stifle Mr. Fuhgeh's access to justice given his inability to pay.

Therefore, the applicants' motions for security for costs were dismissed without prejudice, allowing them to renew their motions or seek other relief once the outcome of Mr. Fuhgeh's motion to set aside the orders is known.

This trial concerned custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary care, supervised access, a restraining order, and permission to travel.

The respondent father sought joint custody (later sole custody) and equal time-sharing.

The court found the mother engaged in significant "gatekeeping" behavior, demonstrating a disregard for the father's parental rights and court orders.

Despite this, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, prioritizing the child's stability given her young age and long-standing primary care with the mother.

The father was granted a detailed access schedule, and the mother's gatekeeping was strongly condemned.

The mother's requests for supervised access and a restraining order were denied.

Retroactive child support was ordered against the father, and a detailed parenting order was established to counter the mother's gatekeeping.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child, H., was in need of protection and for a disposition of extended society care for purposes of adoption, with no parental access.

The respondent mother could not be located, and the respondent father filed a plan of care lacking detail and did not participate further.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the child in need of protection due to parental neglect, severe drug abuse by the mother, and the father's violent criminal history.

The court also determined that extended society care was in the child's best interests and denied parental access, citing the lack of parental contact, the child's young age, and the potential impairment to adoption opportunities.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, including equal parenting or extended overnight access, and joint custody of their seven-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking interim sole custody, Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, and retroactive child support.

The court declined to make an interim sole custody order, finding the parents could communicate on important decisions.

The court granted the father extended overnight access, finding it in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's concerns about the father's parenting abilities and mental health.

Retroactive child support claims were dismissed, but an adjustment for 2018 child support was ordered, and the father agreed to pay his proportionate share of certain Section 7 expenses.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application, seeking extended society care for the child D.M. without access for purposes of adoption.

The motion also sought to strike the father's Answer and Plan of Care.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, emphasizing the caution required in child protection cases, but granted summary judgment.

The child was found in need of protection due to a history of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and lack of engagement, and was placed in extended society care without access for adoption.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to limit the respondent mother to supervised access, remove the right of first refusal, eliminate holiday access, and obtain the right to travel with the children without the mother's consent.

The father alleged a material change in circumstances due to the mother's ongoing conflict, baseless allegations of abuse, and acts of contempt.

The mother opposed the motion, denying risk and contempt, and sought increased access.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the detrimental impact of the mother's behavior on the children and her deliberate contempt for refusing to sign travel consent.

The court varied the access schedule, reducing the mother's access to the son to alternate Saturdays and to the daughter to Friday evening until Saturday afternoon, and permitted the father to travel with the children without the mother's consent.

The applicant mother initiated proceedings for divorce, custody, and relocation to Saudi Arabia.

She unilaterally removed the child to Saudi Arabia and ceased participation in the Canadian proceedings.

The court dismissed her application and proceeded with the respondent father's counterclaims.

The court found Ontario to be the habitual residence of the child and the proper jurisdiction for custody.

The mother was found in contempt of prior court orders for failing to return the child.

The court awarded sole custody of the child to the father, ordered the child's immediate return to Ottawa, issued a warrant for the mother's arrest, and terminated interim child support payable by the father.