Deborah L. Chappel

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,750 per month.

He argued that he had experienced significant financial hardship, including eviction, and that the applicant's receipt of divided CPP credits constituted a material change.

The court found that the respondent's financial difficulties were primarily due to his own accumulation of support arrears and costs awards.

The court also held that the division of CPP credits did not constitute double dipping.

Finding no material change in circumstances for either party, the court dismissed the motion to change.

The respondent, Du Won Kim, brought a motion to stay a default proceeding initiated by the Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), and to prohibit further enforcement measures.

Mr. Kim alleged that Manulife Financial misdirected approximately $67,871.00 in bonus payments, which should have gone to the FRO for support arrears, to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Justice for other liabilities.

He sought an order for Manulife to pay the FRO or for the funds to be retroactively applied to his support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues regarding Manulife's compliance with Support Deduction Notices should be addressed in the Superior Court of Justice in Brampton, where the original support order was made, within the context of Mr. Kim's Motion to Change Final Order, and not in the current default proceeding.

The court also noted serious notice problems as Manulife and the support recipient were not properly notified.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' youngest child and retroactive and ongoing child support for both children, who have significant special needs.

The respondent father failed to appear or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole custody with access at her discretion.

The court found both children remained entitled to support, including the adult child who was enrolled in post-secondary studies and receiving disability benefits.

Income was imputed to the father due to his failure to disclose and evidence of hidden income.

The court ordered retroactive child support to January 2015, including proportionate contributions to section 7 expenses, and awarded costs to the mother.

The respondent brought a motion to establish summer time-sharing arrangements for the parties' child, which was granted.

The respondent subsequently sought costs of $5,820.54 for the motion.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and acted reasonably, while the applicant acted unreasonably by missing deadlines and presenting non-compliant proposals.

However, the court found both parties' costs claims excessive.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent costs of $1,760.00, representing 80% of a reasonable full indemnity amount.

Following a trial on a motion to change custody, access, and child support, the successful respondent sought full indemnity costs of $20,268.38.

The applicant, who was self-represented, did not file responding costs submissions.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party who acted reasonably throughout the proceedings, while the applicant's positions were unreasonable though not amounting to bad faith.

Considering the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,500, payable at $200 per month, and designated 50% of the award as arising in relation to support to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought costs following her success on two motions regarding jurisdiction and the respondent's constitutional challenge based on aboriginal rights.

The applicant claimed $500,000 on a full recovery basis, including a risk premium.

The court rejected the inclusion of a risk premium in family law cases and found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court fixed costs at $315,415 and ordered that the costs be designated as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as the underlying motions were necessary to clear the path for the applicant's support claims.

The moving party (father) brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking to retroactively terminate child support and reduce his accumulated arrears of over $22,000.

The father argued his income had significantly decreased due to health issues since 2004 and he was now solely reliant on a CPP disability pension.

The responding party (mother) opposed the reduction, citing the father's history of evading support and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court found a material change in circumstances only from 2015 onwards, imputing income for the prior years due to severe disclosure deficiencies.

The court dismissed the request to retroactively reduce support and rescind arrears, citing the father's blameworthy conduct, delay, and failure to disclose.

However, given the father's current limited income, the court ordered a payment plan of $65 per month towards the arrears.

The applicant brought a family law application seeking custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent, a Haudenosaunee person and member of the Six Nations, filed an Amended Answer challenging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of Ontario family law legislation, asserting an aboriginal right under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have the dispute resolved under Haudenosaunee laws and processes.

The applicant moved to strike the Amended Answer and dismiss the constitutional case summarily.

The court held that while conflict of laws principles apply to the jurisdiction analysis, they must be modified to account for aboriginal rights claims.

However, the court struck the Amended Answer in its entirety, finding that it failed to plead the necessary material facts, that the respondent lacked standing to advance a collective right of self-government individually, and that the broad claim of immunity from Ontario family law was not cognizable under s. 35(1) jurisprudence.

The court declared it had jurisdiction to hear the family law issues and dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings.

The maternal grandparents sought full indemnity costs of $21,008.73 against the mother following a successful motion for make-up access.

The court found that the mother had acted in bad faith by deliberately obstructing the grandparents' court-ordered access and raising unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The court rejected the mother's request to apportion costs to the father.

After reviewing the bill of costs and making adjustments for excessive claims and unrelated tasks, the court awarded the grandparents full indemnity costs fixed at $13,190.00, payable in two installments due to the mother's limited financial means.

Following a motion for increased parenting time where the applicant father was granted expanded access, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that while the applicant was overall more successful than the respondent mother, both parties had taken unreasonable and overly aggressive positions regarding the time-sharing schedule.

The applicant failed to serve a formal Offer to Settle, and the respondent had limited financial means.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded the applicant $4,200 in costs, representing approximately 50% of his total legal fees and disbursements.

The court determined costs following a 23.5-day family law trial and a 9.5-day contempt motion.

The respondent was successful on the contempt motion and was awarded $27,940 in costs.

The applicant was the overall successful party at trial and served a formal offer to settle that triggered full recovery costs for the latter portion of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $99,100 in costs for the trial.

After setting off the amounts, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net costs award of $71,160.

The respondent sought costs following a successful motion for increased time-sharing with the parties' child.

The respondent claimed full recovery costs of $10,470 based on his success, reasonable conduct, and two offers to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant opposed a significant costs award, citing her limited financial means as a student and expectant mother.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs, noting his reasonable settlement efforts contrasted with the applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

While the respondent's offer to settle presumptively entitled him to full recovery costs for a portion of the proceeding, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the quantum due to the applicant's financial hardship.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,437, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2007 final order that provided for joint custody and equal time-sharing of the parties' special needs child.

The parties had co-parented reasonably well until 2014, after which high conflict erupted, leading to multiple police and Children's Aid Society interventions.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the intense conflict and the respondent father's repeated breaches of the existing order.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding she was more attuned to the child's needs and wishes, but reinstated the equal time-sharing arrangement, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The applicant's claim for retroactive child support was dismissed as the respondent had actually overpaid support during the relevant period.

The applicant was ordered to pay child support for the period the child resided primarily with the respondent under a temporary order, and ongoing support was set based on a set-off calculation for shared parenting.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and retroactive child support for a child with severe special needs, including Prader Willi Syndrome.

The respondent father had minimal contact with the child, actively concealed his income and whereabouts, and failed to pay adequate support.

The court granted the mother sole custody with access at her discretion.

Finding a material change in circumstances, the court imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support dating back to 2008, as well as proportionate contributions to ongoing section 7 expenses.

The parties separated in 2010 after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant mother was charged with assaulting one of the children in 2012, leading to a 21-month period of no contact and the respondent father assuming primary care.

Following reconciliation counselling, the mother sought equal time-sharing and parallel parenting, while the father sought sole custody.

The court found that both parents were capable but unable to communicate effectively due to intense conflict.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime, allocating specific decision-making areas to each parent, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court also resolved outstanding child and spousal support issues, ordering the father to pay a set-off amount of child support going forward and terminating spousal support after a transition period.

The parties were involved in a protracted, high-conflict family law trial regarding custody and access.

Pending the release of full reasons for judgment, the court issued an advance ruling on the issue of 2016 Christmas holiday time-sharing.

The applicant mother sought equal time-sharing over the holidays, while the respondent father sought to limit her time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court found that the mother had made significant strides in addressing past concerns and had re-established a meaningful bond with the children.

The court ordered that the 2016 Christmas school break be shared equally between the parties, structured to ensure the children spent no more than three consecutive overnights with the mother.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2001 child support order, seeking to rescind or reduce approximately $64,000 in arrears.

She argued she was unable to earn the imputed income of $20,800, the children were no longer entitled to support, and the applicant father had prevented access.

The court found the mother failed to prove an inability to earn the imputed income and declined to reduce arrears on that basis or due to access issues.

However, the court found all three children had lost their entitlement to support on various dates between 2009 and 2015.

The court ordered the arrears to be recalculated to reflect the termination of support for each child, but declined to grant any further reduction or rescission of the remaining arrears, ordering them payable at $434 per month.

The applicant children's aid society apprehended a child at birth and sought Crown wardship.

The respondent father, who identified as Métis, brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the definitions of 'Indian', 'Native person', and 'Native child' in section 3(1) of the Child and Family Services Act violated section 15(1) of the Charter by excluding Métis children.

The court found that the definitions created a distinction based on analogous grounds that perpetuated disadvantage for Métis children and their families.

The court declared the definitions invalid but suspended the declaration for 10 months to allow the legislature to amend the Act.

The court also granted an individual remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, ordering that the child be treated as an Indian or Native child for the purposes of the proceedings.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of three temporary supervised access orders.

The mother alleged the father engaged in a campaign of parental alienation and deliberately thwarted the implementation of her access to their two children.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the temporary orders in question had been superseded by a subsequent order and were no longer live and operative.

Furthermore, the court found that the father had not engaged in alienating behaviour, but rather acted out of legitimate protectiveness for the children's emotional well-being.

The court also concluded that the mother failed to use contempt as a remedy of last resort and that the father had taken reasonable steps to facilitate access.

The applicant Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act for the production of the respondent mother's mental health records from various non-parties.

The mother consented to the records being produced to the Society but requested that they be vetted for relevance before being disclosed to the respondent grandmother and counsel for the children.

The court declined to vet the records, finding them clearly relevant to the child protection concerns, and ordered the Society to disclose the records to all parties, subject to conditions protecting the mother's privacy interests.