Deanna Paolucci

The court considered a motion by the applicant father, Kemi Andrew Emberson, for an interim order that the parties’ two children move to Ottawa to reside with him and attend school there.

The respondent mother, Trystian Elizabeth Hilton, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the litigation history, the parties’ circumstances, and the children’s chronic school absences.

The court refused the mother’s request for leave to file late responding materials and ultimately dismissed the father’s motion, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances to justify changing the children’s primary residence on an interim basis.

The court ordered an expedited trial and increased the father’s parenting time pending trial.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking supervised parenting time for the father due to his alleged incitement of the children to make abuse allegations against her and her new husband.

The court found the matter urgent, determined that the father's conduct constituted emotional harm to the children, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, with the mother retaining decision-making responsibility.

The court also ordered disclosure of police and CAS records and set out a process for further proceedings and costs.

This motion concerned an interim parenting schedule for a 2.5-year-old child following the separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, which the respondent mother opposed, proposing a more gradual reintroduction.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting that the "tender years" doctrine no longer applies and breastfeeding is one of many factors.

The court considered the geographic distance between the parents, the mother's mental health issues and associated release order, and the mother's uncooperative approach to facilitating parenting time.

While acknowledging the mother as the primary caregiver pre-separation, the court ordered a structured, gradually increasing parenting schedule for the father, including weeknight visits in the mother's area and weekend visits at a midpoint location.

The motion was adjourned for continuation in several months to assess the schedule's effectiveness and allow for further evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of three children with their paternal grandmother due to the mother's untreated substance addiction, mental health issues, and chaotic lifestyle.

The father and paternal grandmother supported the Society's motion.

The mother opposed, seeking shared decision-making and parenting time.

The paternal grandmother also brought a cross-motion for a change of the youngest child's surname.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and placed the children in the paternal grandmother's custody with specific supervised access for the mother.

The paternal grandmother's cross-motion for a name change was dismissed as moot.

The applicants, maternal grandparents, sought an interim contact order for their three grandchildren under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondents, the biological parents, had terminated all contact in October 2021, alleging the grandparents repeatedly tried to undermine their relationship with the children and caused psychological distress.

The court denied the grandparents' motion for interim relief, finding that the parents' decision to terminate contact was not arbitrary but was a reasoned, incremental response motivated by the children's emotional needs, given the grandparents' consistent disregard for boundaries and attempts to interfere with parental authority.

The court emphasized the high deference owed to parental decision-making unless parents are found to be acting arbitrarily.

In a return motion concerning a high-conflict family law matter, the respondent mother sought to maintain sole decision-making and no contact for the applicant father with their eldest child, Abi, due to the father's alienating behavior.

The mother also sought primary care of their younger child, Sammy, and sole decision-making for Sammy on health and tutoring, plus an order for the father to pay half of reunification counseling costs.

The court found the father lacked sufficient insight into his manipulative conduct that contributed to Abi's estrangement.

The court maintained the temporary order granting the mother sole decision-making for Abi and prohibiting father's contact, contingent on the father's meaningful engagement in reunification counseling.

The week-about parenting schedule for Sammy was maintained, but the father was ordered to take Sammy to appointments, and both parents were restricted on phone usage for Sammy.

The father was ordered to pay half of the reunification counseling costs.

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.

Following a twelve-day trial on a motion to change regarding parenting and relocation, the successful party sought costs of $91,098.07.

The opposing party argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the moving party was clearly successful and entitled to costs, but declined to award full indemnity costs as the judgment was not more favourable than the offer to settle on all issues.

The court awarded costs of $45,000, applying reductions for the unnecessary use of second counsel and the opposing party's dire financial circumstances.

Following a 10-day trial where the applicant mother was awarded legal guardianship of the parties' 18-year-old son, the mother sought costs of $52,132.65.

The respondent father opposed, arguing each party should bear their own costs due to the mother's alleged unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the father's conduct was far more obstructive and unreasonable, though not meeting the threshold for bad faith.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000 payable forthwith, noting the father's ability to pay.

The Father brought a motion to change previous parenting orders, seeking primary residence and final decision-making authority, and opposing the Mother's planned relocation to Australia with the children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Mother's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the Father, which led to CAS involvement, and a complete breakdown in communication.

The court determined it was not in the children's best interests to relocate to Australia, as they required stability and there were serious concerns the Mother would not support their relationship with the Father.

The Father was granted primary residence and final decision-making authority, while the Mother was granted graduated unsupervised parenting time.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order to place a child with his biological father, J.W., under an interim supervision order.

The child's parents, K.T. and E.M., sought the child's return to K.T.'s care under an interim supervision order.

The court found the child was at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to adult conflict between the parents.

However, given that the parents were now living separately, the court determined that the child could be adequately protected by an interim supervision order returning the child to K.T.'s care, with terms reflecting the Society's notice of motion.

The Society's request for placement with J.W. was dismissed, and the child was returned to the mother, K.T., under supervision.

This trial decision addressed the sole remaining issue of a parenting plan for three daughters following the parents' separation.

The court considered the children's best interests, including their views (obtained through a judicial interview with the eldest child), the parents' differing parenting styles, and the history of care.

The mother was granted primary care and final decision-making authority for medical and educational matters, with joint decision-making for major extracurricular activities and religious upbringing.

The father was granted increased, but not equal, parenting time, including specific regular and holiday schedules.

The court emphasized the need for both parents to improve communication and cooperation.

The parties attended a Trial Management Conference for a motion to change a U.S. parenting and child support order.

The court found the parties were unprepared for trial, having failed to confer, prepare a joint Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form, or address significant jurisdictional issues regarding the adult disabled child and the foreign divorce.

The court ordered a further TMC and directed the parties to exchange will-say statements, requests to admit, and research on jurisdiction.

The applicant sought costs for successful urgency and jurisdictional determinations, and for a partially successful motion to stay a trial judgment pending appeal.

The respondent sought costs for her success on the stay motion.

The court found mixed success, with the applicant prevailing on urgency and jurisdiction, and the respondent on the joint decision-making aspect of the stay.

Neither party fully succeeded on parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant $2,750 and the respondent $1,250, resulting in a net payment of $1,500 to the applicant, deferred until the appeal's disposition.

The court declined to award costs for preparing costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' bills and the applicant's improper disclosure of an offer to settle.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion to stay a custody and parenting order pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The preliminary issue was whether the Superior Court of Justice retained jurisdiction to hear the stay motion after an appeal had been launched.

The court found that Rule 63.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court for such motions.

The respondent mother failed to demonstrate why the Superior Court should not exercise its concurrent jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court asserted jurisdiction and scheduled the applicant's motion for a stay.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to disclose unredacted U.S. income tax returns for 2017 and 2018, including his current wife's income information.

The father opposed disclosure, citing his wife's privacy interests.

The court balanced the privacy interests of the third-party spouse against the mother's need for accurate income information to calculate child support, particularly regarding tax rate differentials under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that disclosure of the wife's income was necessary to accurately determine the father's effective tax rate for gross-up calculations, as the father and wife filed joint returns with a blended tax rate.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a final order for primary residence of the two children, specified access for the respondent mother, and an adjustment of Family Responsibility Office (FRO) support payments with an imputed income of $50,000 for the mother.

The respondent mother resisted the change in parenting time and requested a family assessment.

The court granted the father primary residence, ordered access in accordance with the children's expressed wishes, and allowed the father to register the children in counselling without the mother's consent.

The court imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the mother for child and spousal support calculations from January 2018 onward, adjusting support arrears and payments accordingly.

The mother's request for a family assessment was denied.

This decision addresses costs following a six-day trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support based on an imputed income of $60,000, while the respondent father sought joint custody and child support based on a lower imputed income.

The court granted the mother sole custody, provided the father with more access than the mother initially sought but less than he requested, and imputed an income of $55,000 to the father.

The mother sought full indemnity costs from the date of her comprehensive offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs for the period prior.

The father offered to pay $7,000, citing financial hardship.

The court found the mother achieved a much higher degree of success and that her January 9, 2019 offer to settle was as favourable as, or more favourable than, the trial outcome for the father.

The mother was awarded full costs from the date of her offer, fixed at $26,913.35, payable at $200 per month and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, balancing the father's ability to pay with the mother's reasonable conduct and the purpose of encouraging settlement.