Diana Tomazin

The Director, Family Responsibility Office (FRO), on behalf of Shannon Brown, brought a motion for a Warrant of Committal against Trevor Dubeau for failing to comply with a 2016 default order regarding child support arrears, which had accumulated to over $83,000.

Dubeau claimed inability to pay due to unemployment since 2015, a house fire, and living with parents in a rural area with poor internet and no driver's license.

The court found Dubeau's explanations lacked evidence of efforts to find employment or disability, concluding he was purposefully underemployed and his non-payment was wilful and deliberate.

The court granted the motion, ordering Dubeau's incarceration for 180 intermittent days until the arrears are cured or payment arrangements are made.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of court after the respondent refused to return the children following a summer access visit.

The contempt motion was resolved substantially on consent after the respondent retained counsel.

The court treated the motion as one to enforce a court order.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $2,883.12.

The court found the respondent's conduct necessitated the motion but declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the consent resolution.

Costs were fixed at $1,700 payable by the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to file Trial Scheduling Endorsement Forms (TSEF), secure life insurance benefits, and for leave to bring a motion for interim spousal support despite a settlement conference having already occurred.

The court granted the consent orders regarding the TSEF and life insurance.

However, the court denied leave for the interim spousal support motion, finding that the applicant failed to adequately explain the significant delay in bringing the claim and noting that the matter should proceed directly to trial.

The parties resolved ongoing child support on consent but disputed retroactive child support for 2018.

The applicant argued his 2018 income should not include a mandatory pension payout, while the respondent's income should be averaged due to her sick leave.

The court excluded the portion of the pension payout reinvested into an RRSP but included the remainder, finding the applicant failed to establish unfairness.

The court used the respondent's actual 2018 income and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support based on a set-off of the parties' incomes.

The applicant father sought joint custody and increasing parenting time of his son, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and limited, supervised access.

The mother had tightly controlled the father's access since birth, requiring it to be supervised at a centre despite no safety concerns.

The court found the mother's gatekeeping behaviour detrimental to the father-son relationship.

The court ordered joint custody, with primary residence to the mother, and a schedule of increasing unsupervised parenting time for the father, including overnights.

The father was also ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $40,000.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to relocate the child's residence to Kingston, Ontario, to accept a teaching contract.

The applicant consented to the move but disputed the adjusted access schedule.

The court granted the respondent's request to move the child on consent and established a temporary access schedule for the applicant, contingent on whether the applicant also relocated to Kingston.

The court declined to address additional motions filed by both parties, including a request to vary interim child support, deeming them speculative and premature given the impending trial.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of a child born in 2016, supervised access for the respondent, child support, permission to travel, and permission to relocate.

The respondent, who struggles with mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety and depression, was represented by duty counsel.

The court granted the motion, awarding sole custody to the applicant, liberal and general access to the respondent at the applicant's discretion, child support of $25 per month, permission to travel with notice, and permission to relocate within 100 kilometres.

Following a family law trial in which the respondent secured retroactive and ongoing spousal support, the court addressed the respondent’s claim for costs.

The respondent sought costs calculated at substantial indemnity rates based on counsel’s hourly billing and the applicant’s disclosure failures.

The court reaffirmed that legal aid representation does not reduce the recoverable costs from the opposing party, but held that substantial indemnity was not justified in the circumstances.

Considering the applicant’s disclosure non-compliance and the respondent’s overall success at trial, balanced against the need to avoid impairing the applicant’s ability to pay ordered support, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.