Denise Badley

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion by Mohammed Duni seeking the return of his children from Orillia to Toronto, along with primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother, Ahlam Said, had relocated the children without notice, and the father argued this was an improper disruption of the children's habitual residence.

The court analyzed the best interests of the children under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including factors related to family violence, the impact of the father's delay in pursuing the motion, and the children's stability and routines.

The court declined to immediately change decision-making responsibility but ordered the children to remain in Orillia until the end of the school year, with increased parenting time for the father, and scheduled an expedited trial for a final determination.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking ongoing and retroactive child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses, based on an imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent, a taxi driver, disputed the income and provided incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent had not adequately complied with disclosure obligations, imputed an annual income of $60,000 for 2024 and $21,500 for the preceding three years, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support accordingly.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to past and ongoing section 7 orthodontic expenses and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to provide timely and full disclosure.

This motion concerned an application by the respondent father to vary a divorce order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the children, and termination of child support.

The children had been removed from the applicant mother's care by the Children's Aid Society due to concerns about their well-being, including isolation, lack of schooling, and the mother's mental health, and were subsequently placed with the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the requested parenting orders were in the children's best interests, considering the father's ability to provide stability and the mother's past conduct, which included alienating the children from their father and failing to provide adequate care.

The motion was granted, varying the divorce order to reflect the father's sole decision-making and primary residence, and terminating child support.

The applicant father, Mohammed Firuz, was successful in his motion to increase parenting time.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The father sought $6,102, while the mother, Shafiqa Said, requested no costs, citing impecuniosity.

The court found the father's offer to settle was more favorable than the motion's outcome, triggering the costs consequences of Family Law Rule 18(14).

Despite the mother's limited ability to pay, her chronic unreasonable and obstructive behavior regarding parenting time and her failure to make an offer to settle warranted a costs award.

The court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,000 in costs, inclusive of fees and HST, deferring the payment terms until a later date.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application concerning two children, De. (12) and Da. (11).

The agency sought custody of the children to their father under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with specified access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to her care or, alternatively, generous access, arguing genuine issues requiring a trial.

The father supported the agency's request.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns and the children's settled placement with the father.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, awarding custody to the father and establishing a detailed access schedule for the mother, along with orders for passports and travel without the mother's consent.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the two youngest children to her care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld them.

The court found the father's actions were not in the children's best interests and appeared tactical, taking advantage of the COVID-19 situation.

The court ordered temporary shared parenting, with specific arrangements for the children to spend time with the mother, and directed the parties to use Our Family Wizard for communication.

No temporary custody order was made, and the father's allegations of substance abuse against the mother were unsubstantiated by a hair follicle test.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion without notice for the return of two of the parties' children to her care, alleging domestic abuse.

The applicant father disputed the allegations and claimed the children primarily resided with him.

The court found the matter was a parenting dispute rather than an urgent issue arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, though it noted concern over the father's apparent failure to facilitate contact.

The court declined to proceed with the motion and instead directed the parties to attend a case conference restricted to temporary parenting arrangements.

The respondent (mother) brought an urgent, ex parte motion for the return of two children.

The court reviewed the criteria for urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic and found no sufficient basis for proceeding without notice to the applicant (father), despite allegations of domestic abuse.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father with her motion materials and set a schedule for responses, limiting affidavit lengths and the scope of relief to parenting arrangements.

A family law trial concerning access to two young children and child support obligations.

The father sought expanded access from six hours weekly to overnight access on alternate weekends, while the mother opposed overnight access and sought restrictions on the father's partner's presence during visits.

The court granted a phased expansion of access, initially restricting the father's partner's presence but allowing it to commence in September 2019.

On child support, the court imputed income of $45,000 annually to the father based on his employment history and lifestyle evidence, rejecting his claims of unemployment and finding intentional underemployment.

The court ordered child support retroactive to the date of separation and contributions toward extraordinary extracurricular expenses.

A costs decision following a trial judgment on a restraining order application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,734 on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a restraining order against the respondent father, though her request for a restraining order protecting her teenaged daughter was denied.

The respondent father argued costs should be limited to $750-$1,000.

The court awarded costs of $5,815.66, rejecting the mother's reliance on outdated case law regarding full recovery of costs and applying the proportionality and reasonableness principles established in Beaver v. Hill.

The court disallowed 10.3 hours of pre-trial work and allowed 17 hours of trial-related work at the counsel's reasonable hourly rate of $375.

The applicant sought divorce, equalization of net family property, and costs.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings despite multiple court orders and opportunities, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence regarding assets, debts, and the value of the respondent's pension, ordering an equalization payment of $51,108.38 to be transferred from the respondent's locked-in RSP, repayment of $600 for specific debts, and costs of $5,150 to the applicant.

A divorce was also granted.

The parties separated in March 2001 and divorced in 2006.

The respondent sought an equalization of net family property, claiming a 50 percent interest in two properties and arguing he received less than his share from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent had no interest in the second property, which was purchased after separation.

The equalization claim was dismissed because the respondent failed to provide reliable evidence or financial disclosure regarding his own net family property at the date of marriage and valuation date, making it impossible to determine if he received less than his entitlement.

A mother sought permission to travel with three children (ages 11, 7, and 6) to Pakistan for five weeks to visit their ailing maternal grandmother.

The father opposed the motion on two grounds: that the mother was a flight risk and that Pakistan posed an unwarranted risk of harm to the children.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk based on her strong ties to Canada, including Canadian citizenship, stable housing, ongoing education, and child care subsidies.

However, the court dismissed the motion based on the significant security risks in Pakistan, including terrorism, violent crime, and civil unrest, as documented in Canadian government travel advisories.

The court balanced the benefit to the children of visiting their grandmother against the very real risk of harm and concluded the risks outweighed the benefits.