Deanna Paolucci

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.

This is a costs decision following a procedural motion, a motion to change, and a trial of an issue in a family law matter.

The respondent, Mr. Eaton, was largely successful in all three underlying hearings and had made several offers to settle.

The applicant, Ms. Boily, was ordered to pay costs to the respondent in the total sum of $14,500.81, inclusive of HST and disbursements, for the three matters.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the outcomes relative to those offers, finding Mr. Eaton entitled to full recovery of costs for the procedural motion and the trial of an issue due to Ms. Boily's failure to accept more favourable offers, but only partial recovery for the motion to change due to Mr. Eaton's prior non-compliance with disclosure orders.

Following a six-day trial, the court determined custody, access, and child support for two young children.

The mother sought sole custody and supervised access for the father, while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parents unable to communicate effectively due to the father's abusive behaviour and mental health struggles.

The father was granted access every second weekend, to be exercised under the flexible supervision of his parents or partner.

Additionally, the court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 for child support purposes.

This judgment addresses a discrete trial of an issue concerning retroactive child and spousal support payable by the respondent from September 24, 2009, to December 31, 2011.

The court determined that no support was payable for the last quarter of 2009.

For 2010, child support was set at $1268 per month based on an annual income of $65,000, with no spousal support.

For 2011, child support was set at $624 per month based on an annual income of $31,708, with no spousal support.

The court emphasized the reliance on CRA Notices of Assessment for income determination, dismissing the applicant's speculative claims of higher income.

This final order replaced previous temporary orders, and the Family Responsibility Office was directed to adjust arrears accordingly.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The father of a child in care brought motions to validate the late delivery of his notice of appeal, to stay the trial judge's order making the child a Crown ward with no access, and for access pending appeal for himself and the child's aunt.

The society brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the appeal.

The aunt sought to be added as a party.

The Divisional Court granted the father's motion to extend the time to appeal, finding no prejudice to the child.

The court dismissed the society's motion for summary judgment, holding that the rules do not permit summary judgment on appeals to the Divisional Court.

The court declined to add the aunt as a party or stay the trial decision, and denied the father access pending appeal.

However, the court granted the aunt access to the child pending the appeal, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking Schedule I substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police executed a search warrant at the defendant's residence and seized cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, oxycodone, oxycontin, digital scales, drug packaging materials, cell phones, and a shotgun with ammunition.

The defendant, a 26-year-old first-time offender with stable employment and family responsibilities, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrent on all counts, with ancillary orders for DNA collection, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items.

This child protection application concerned the future of M.H., a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The father, B.H., sought custody or joint custody with his sister, S.H., or for S.H. to have full custody.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's long-standing and unaddressed drug dependency, dishonesty, and unstable behaviour, which posed a risk of physical harm.

The father's proposed plans of care were deemed unrealistic and insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The sister's late proposal for custody was also rejected due to her lack of insight into the father's issues.

Crown wardship with no access for adoption was ordered, as the relationship between father and child was not found to be beneficial to the child, and access would impair adoption.

The court also commented on the excessive delay in the proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

On competing interim motions in a custody dispute concerning a four‑year‑old child, the court considered whether to alter the existing parenting arrangements following a period during which the child had primarily resided with the father.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principle that interim orders should generally preserve the status quo absent compelling evidence, the court examined stability, parental capacity, and recent changes in the mother’s circumstances.

Evidence included frequent moves by the mother, concerns about drug use, and the father’s stable home environment and childcare arrangements.

The court concluded that the child’s best interests were served by maintaining primary residence with the father while preserving meaningful parenting time for the mother.

Joint interim custody was ordered, with the father having decision‑making authority over health and education.