Diana Aoun

In Part Two of a trial decision, the court determined child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support following a transfer of primary care to the applicant father.

The court imputed additional income to the applicant based on unreported rental income but rejected the respondent's expert evidence claiming the applicant earned significant unreported cash from his pizza franchise.

The court calculated child support arrears at $3,860 and section 7 arrears at $8,136.98, crediting the applicant for a portion of undocumented cash support payments made prior to the litigation.

The court found the respondent entitled to compensatory spousal support at the mid-range effective December 24, 2021, deferring the final quantum and duration pending further submissions.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making responsibility for his two children, who had not seen him in over a year due to the respondent mother's interference.

The mother alleged the children were profoundly disabled and terrified of the father due to past family violence.

The court found that the mother was consciously or unconsciously alienating the children from the father, causing their mental health to deteriorate and creating a resist-refuse dynamic.

The court ordered a custody reversal, transferring primary residence and sole decision-making to the father, with a 30-day period of no contact with the mother to allow for intensive reunification therapy.

The court also ordered the daughter's surname to be hyphenated to include the father's surname.

Family law trial following a 21-year marriage in which the applicant sought divorce, sole decision-making responsibility in consultation with the respondent, a shared parenting schedule, imputed income for the respondent, equalization, and post-separation adjustments.

The respondent, who was self-represented, sought primary residence of the children, table child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, an equal alternating-week parenting schedule, retroactive child and spousal support based on imputed incomes for both parties, an equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant including a negative inference for undisclosed jewellery, and post-separation adjustments for carrying costs on jointly owned properties.

The court addresses a family law dispute between Chadia Abou-Assaly and Mounir El-Saikali, involving issues of decision-making responsibility, child support, equalization of net family property, and resulting trust claims over two properties.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in both the Foxden and Forestglade properties by way of resulting trust, sets the date of separation as August 13, 2019, and orders child support and arrears based on imputed income.

The court also addresses the respondent's self-represented status, disclosure failures, and the need for further proceedings to finalize equalization and support calculations.

The applicant sought interim child support and imputation of income to the respondent, who claimed inability to work due to physical limitations.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed but did not accept his doctor's opinion as expert evidence for complete inability to work.

Income was imputed at minimum wage for 30 hours/week, resulting in a lower child support amount than sought by the applicant.

Issues of retroactive support and life insurance were deferred to trial.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father, who have a child with special needs, were before the court on a motion for parenting time and a cross-motion for child support.

The court addressed only the parenting time aspect, finding a material change in circumstances due to the Father's lack of contact with the child for eight months.

The court ordered a gradual restoration of the Father's parenting time, starting with specific daytime visits, and maintained the Mother's sole decision-making authority with a requirement to consult the Father.

The Mother's requests for a parenting course for the Father, OCL involvement, and unilateral passport/travel authority were denied.

The Father's request for joint decision-making and immediate equal parenting time was also denied.

Following a 10-day trial regarding parenting time and a request for a permanent restraining order, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $37,000.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the applicant did not obtain a restraining order or a no-parenting-time order, and the respondent did not obtain the parenting time recommended by the OCL.

Furthermore, the court determined that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, negatively impacting the child.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking to impose conditions on the responding party father's parenting time with their seven-year-old son, who was recently diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a temporary stay of the existing parenting order, replacing it with a gradual reintegration plan facilitated by the child's behavioural therapist.

The mother's requests for sole decision-making authority and to change the child's surname were deferred and dismissed, respectively.

In a trial continuation regarding parenting time and a restraining order, the court considered the father's request for unsupervised parenting time with his youngest child and the mother's request for a final restraining order.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and struggled with emotional control, while the mother had failed to actively encourage the child's relationship with the father.

The court ordered the father to attend individual therapy and reunification counselling before commencing supervised parenting time.

The mother's request for a final restraining order was dismissed, but a no-contact order was issued under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his two children to the UK.

The respondent mother sought an adjournment pending the children's refugee claims in Canada.

The court bifurcated the hearing, proceeding first with the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal.

The court found that the family had relocated to London, UK, following the end of the father's diplomatic posting in Canada, and that the children were habitually resident there.

The mother's removal of the children to Canada was found to be wrongful.

The second stage of the hearing regarding whether the children should be ordered returned was deferred until after the refugee claims are decided.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' three youngest children after the applicant father unilaterally withheld them following an access visit.

The father alleged the children disclosed physical abuse by the mother, but police and child protection investigations were inconclusive and noted changing disclosures.

The court found overwhelming evidence of parental alienation by the father, including coaching the children to make false allegations and fear their mother.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's sole care, suspended the father's access, and authorized police enforcement.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent ex parte motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the former matrimonial home, which was solely owned by the respondent and listed for sale.

The applicant, now a former spouse, argued the home could not be listed or sold without his consent and sought a CPL to protect his interest in an equalization of net family property.

The court dismissed the request, finding that spousal rights under sections 18(1) and 21 of the Family Law Act do not extend to former spouses, and a claim for equalization does not establish an interest in land entitling a claimant to a CPL.

This divorce proceeding primarily addressed parenting and child support for two children, with minor property issues.

The respondent, rendered quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident where the applicant was the at-fault driver, sought joint custody and increased parenting time.

The court granted a parenting order, with the children residing with the applicant, who retained day-to-day control and final decision-making authority on major issues after consulting the respondent.

The respondent was granted weekend parenting time, subject to the condition of a caregiver's presence.

The decision on child support was deferred due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent regarding insurance proceeds and accident benefits, with further disclosure ordered.

Minor personal property issues were resolved, and the divorce was granted, severed from the corollary relief issues.

Costs were deferred pending resolution of the support issue.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his ongoing failure to provide financial disclosure, or alternatively, for summary judgment on parenting and child support.

The court struck the father's pleadings regarding child support due to his egregious non-compliance with disclosure orders, but allowed his pleadings on parenting to remain in the children's best interests.

The court granted summary judgment awarding sole custody to the mother, finding no genuine issue for trial given the father's high-conflict behavior and the children's mental health struggles.

Income was imputed to the father for child support purposes based on his employment history and medical evidence.

The Applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, faced significant credibility issues regarding his income and financial disclosure.

The court determined the date of separation, imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes due to intentional underemployment, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment and payment for a post-separation debt incurred by the Respondent on the Applicant's credit card.

Daycare expenses were denied due to a lack of credible evidence from the Applicant.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care and no access for the parents of a ten-month-old child.

The mother struggled with long-standing opiate addiction and had recently relapsed, while the father was incarcerated and had no relationship with the child.

The court granted summary judgment for extended society care and no access to the father, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial on those issues.

However, the court found a genuine issue existed regarding the mother's access and ordered a mini-trial to determine that issue.

The appellant appealed a final order setting child support and section 7 extraordinary expenses, as well as the trial costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the imputation of income to the respondent, the reduction of the appellant's child care costs, and the trial costs award.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding the proportional sharing of ongoing and retroactive section 7 expenses, finding that the trial judge erred by using earning potential rather than actual income to determine the proportionate shares.

The issue of retroactive section 7 expenses was remitted to the trial judge for recalculation.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for three children.

The mother and the two fathers of the children opposed the application, seeking to have the children returned to their care.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the parents' significant mental health issues, substance abuse, and inability to provide a stable environment.

The mother was physically disabled and insisted on caring for one of the fathers, who suffered from severe mental illness and required constant supervision.

The other father had a history of substance abuse and an unstable lifestyle.

The court concluded that the parents' plans of care were unworkable and that it was in the best interests of the children to be made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with some transitional access and potential openness agreements.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of three children for the purpose of adoption by their paternal aunt.

The children were apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence.

While the mother had recently made commendable progress in addressing her addictions and mental health issues, the court found her plan of care carried substantial risk of future breakdown.

The children were thriving in the stable care of their kin family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without an access order, leaving access to a potential openness agreement.

The parties brought cross-motions on interim family law issues.

The applicant sought to reduce the listing price of the matrimonial home, payment of child support arrears, and contribution to consolidated debt.

The respondent sought interim and retroactive spousal support.

The court ordered the listing price of the matrimonial home reduced to $295,000, postponed the issue of child support arrears to trial, maintained the status quo on the consolidated debt, and declined to order interim spousal support as entitlement was not clearly established.