Deborah Elizabeth Bennett

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his five-year-old daughter, who was unilaterally removed from Morocco to Canada by the respondent mother.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Morocco and that the father was exercising his custody rights as a legal guardian under Moroccan law.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the return, arguing exceptions under the Hague Convention, including grave risk of harm, the child's objections, and human rights violations.

The court dismissed the exceptions, finding that Moroccan family law prioritizes the best interests of the child and that the mother's allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold of grave risk.

The court ordered the child's return to Morocco and awarded costs to the father.

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 Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss openness applications filed by the mother (J.S.R.) and adult sister (H.S.R.) concerning two children, E. and R., who were in the Society's extended care and subsequently adopted.

The court considered the children's best interests, their consistent views against contact with the applicants, and the requirement for consent for children over 12 under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The motion was granted, dismissing the openness applications and ordering openness only according to the children's wishes as reflected in minutes signed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Society.

The trial addressed child and spousal support, specifically determining income, compensatory spousal support entitlement, and quantum.

A key issue was the imputation of income from the father's stock options.

The court found the mother had a strong compensatory entitlement to indefinite spousal support due to her significant non-financial contributions during the marriage.

The court imputed a future income to the mother but declined to retroactively impute income from the father's unexercised stock options or unrealized vested shares, finding his reasons for deferral valid.

The court ordered specific financial disclosure, health coverage for children, and life insurance to secure support obligations.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her three grandchildren.

The children had recently been placed in her temporary care under a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party at this early stage would cause delay, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, and escalate conflict, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court noted the grandmother could reapply if circumstances changed.

Following a five-day trial on parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis for all steps, including issues settled just prior to trial.

The court held that costs could be awarded for the settled issues because the applicant was clearly successful on primary residence and decision-making.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not trigger full indemnity costs because they contained terms the court could not order, the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with disclosure orders, justified an elevated partial recovery costs award of 70%.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support arrears from the respondent father, alleging underpayment since 2016.

The respondent father sought reimbursement for alleged overpayments and a variation to shared parenting time.

The court granted the applicant's claim for $31,434 in retroactive child support arrears, finding the respondent's alleged overpayments and in-kind contributions did not offset the underpayment.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, maintaining the mother as the primary caregiver with increased but progressive parenting time for the father, and granted the mother final decision-making authority due to high conflict.

The court also set ongoing child support and special expenses.

The Father brought a motion seeking the return of one child (R.M.) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under both s. 22(1)(b) and s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 22(1)(b) were met, including that there were no pending extra-provincial proceedings due to the Father's bad faith in concealing UAE custody proceedings from the Mother.

Furthermore, the court found that R.M. would suffer serious physical and psychological harm if returned to the UAE, given the Mother and children's Convention refugee status, the Father's history of abuse and lack of credibility, and R.M.'s strong, consistent views against returning.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order to allow for equal, week-about parenting time for the parties' 14-year-old child.

The child expressed a consistent preference for a shared parenting arrangement to an assessor.

However, the court found significant ongoing conflict between the parents and instances where the applicant undermined the respondent's decision-making authority and parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion to change the parenting schedule, finding the current arrangement primarily in the respondent's care remained in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting order, seeking supervised access for the respondent father and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the mother denied him access, and sought the sale of the family home.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's aggressive behaviour and substance abuse issues, which caused the children emotional harm.

The court varied the interim order to reduce the father's parenting time to daytime only, supervised by his parents.

The court dismissed the father's contempt motion, finding that while the mother technically breached the order, she did so to protect the children from family violence.

The court also ordered the sale of the family home, child support, and requested OCL involvement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order regarding the children's schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking an order that they attend in person.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for online learning due to his alleged immunocompromised status.

The court found the father failed to provide medical evidence of an unacceptable risk to his health.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered the children to attend school in person when it resumes.

The court declined to order the use of Our Family Wizard but imposed communication rules.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the applicant father's Request to Admit to avoid deemed admissions, and to strike two subsequent Requests to Admit.

The court found that the respondent had served a blanket refusal within the required 20 days, meaning no deemed admissions occurred, and thus no extension was necessary.

The court also struck the applicant's second and third Requests to Admit as improper and an abuse of process, noting they sought admissions about privileged settlement conference discussions.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and an advance on an equalization payment from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay net child support of $1,041 per month and spousal support of $1,172 per month.

The court declined to order an advance on the equalization payment beyond the amounts consented to by the father, as the father's pension had not yet been valued and funds needed to remain in trust to secure potential cost awards at trial.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the mother brought a motion for the temporary care and custody of her child.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother after the mother was arrested and detained on criminal charges.

The court determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child at the time of the society's intervention, meaning the child must be returned to her unless a material change in circumstances required a change in custody in the child's best interests.

The court found that while the mother's detention was a material change, returning the child to the mother's care was in the child's best interests, as the society had previously been satisfied with her parenting and the child exhibited a need for the emotional security she provided.

The mother's motion was allowed.

The applicant father sought to enforce an access order and brought a motion for assessment and directions, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a restraining order and reports.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion and provided directions to implement the access order.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of that motion, finding the applicant partially successful and awarding him $2000 in costs, payable after trial from the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's actions frustrated the previous access order.

The applicant sought costs following a motion concerning interest on a judgment order and a variation of spousal support based on the respondent's post-separation income increase.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was substantially successful in obtaining interest, full payment of the judgment order, and a substantial increase in spousal support.

The court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $10,000.

The applicant father brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for allegedly failing to abide by an access order concerning their child.

The mother sought an adjournment to obtain a Voice of the Child Report.

The court granted the adjournment, ordered a Voice of the Child Report, and directed the parties to attend reintegration counselling.

The court declined to order immediate face-to-face access, emphasizing the need for more information and the potential detriment of forcing the child's hand at this stage.

The court also referred the matter to a case management justice.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking increased spousal support based on the respondent's significant post-separation income increase, as well as enforcement of a prior judgment for $21,600.00.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's increased income and determined the applicant had a compensatory claim entitling her to share in that increase.

The court ordered increased spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and directed the respondent to pay the outstanding judgment balance with interest.

In a child protection application, the Children's Aid Society sought to admit out-of-court statements made by two children to child protection workers and a forensic psychiatrist.

The mother opposed the admission of some statements, arguing the children should testify.

Following a voir dire, the court found that the necessity requirement was met because testifying would likely cause the children stress and harm.

The court assessed the threshold reliability of the statements, admitting several for the children's state of mind and some for the truth of their contents, while excluding others that lacked sufficient detail or reliability.