Deanna Paolucci

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 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.