Edosa Adams-Idode

This family law trial decision addresses parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support arrears.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making due to a history of family violence.

The self-represented respondent father sought equal parenting.

The court acknowledged past family violence but found a significant reduction in risk and improved cooperation between the parties over the past four years.

Primary residence was granted to the mother, while decision-making for education and serious medical issues was ordered to be joint.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support and substantial arrears based on an imputed income, with a credit for past rent payments.

International travel with the children was permitted for both parents under specific conditions.

The court determined costs for two temporary motions within a motion to change parenting and support.

For the first motion (production of documents), the mother was successful, and the father was ordered to pay her $1,500.

For the second motion (temporary parenting time), the father was successful in achieving his requested supervised parenting time, and the mother was ordered to pay him $750.

The court also analyzed the application of Rule 18(14) regarding offers to settle, finding that neither party's offer met the strict technical requirements for the presumptive costs consequences.

Overall, the costs were set off, resulting in the father owing the mother $750.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the effective date for the retroactive variation of a child support order.

The appellant sought an earlier effective date, arguing the motion judge erred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determination that the appellant was responsible for inordinate delay in bringing the application, which prejudiced the respondent and children.

The court also rejected fresh evidence from both parties, concluding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody and primary residence of the children, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, alleging the respondent mother's uncontrolled alcoholism posed a risk to the children.

The motion was heard during the Covid-19 pandemic via videoconference.

The court dismissed the father's requests for sole custody and exclusive possession, finding he failed to establish that the mother's alcoholism was uncontrolled or posed a risk.

The court also ruled that surreptitious surveillance evidence was inadmissible due to public policy against such practices in family law.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody and week-about access, and provided extensive commentary on the need for parties and counsel to adopt a less litigious and more cooperative approach, especially during the pandemic.

The applicant mother sought primary residence of the two children pending trial, while the respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the father had engaged in controlling and manipulative behaviour, including pressuring the children regarding equal time and unilaterally depleting home equity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to have primary residence with the mother to provide stability, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final say in the event of an impasse, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant mother sought a determination that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that an Ontario court should exercise jurisdiction over custody and access matters.

The respondent father opposed the application.

The child was born in Ontario but spent approximately 17 months of his 24-month life in Ecuador with both parents before the family came to Canada in October 2016.

Following a separation and altercation in Canada, the respondent retained the child's passport, preventing the applicant from returning to Ecuador.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Ecuador, that substantial evidence regarding the child's best interests was available in Ecuador, and that on the balance of convenience, Ecuador was the appropriate forum.

The court declined jurisdiction and ordered the respondent to release the child's passport and documents to the applicant, along with travel costs to Ecuador.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings, a finding that the child L.W. was in need of protection, and an order making the child a Crown ward for purposes of adoption.

The child was born prematurely with significant health concerns and was apprehended shortly after birth.

The mother had five older children, all of whom had been found to be children in need of protection and permanently placed outside her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding statutory findings or protection findings based on the mother's chronic inability to provide adequate care, poor home conditions, and lack of insight into her parenting deficits.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the child a Crown ward without access, and denied the mother's requests to amend her plan of care and for a section 54 assessment.

In a high-conflict family dispute involving competing motions for temporary custody of three children, the court was faced with extensive, untested affidavit evidence containing serious and conflicting allegations between the parents.

Investigations by police and child protection authorities did not result in charges or protection findings.

Given the imminence of a scheduled trial and the incomplete evidentiary record, the court declined to determine the temporary custody issues on the motion.

The court held that credibility assessments and a full evidentiary record were required and therefore left the issues for determination by the trial judge.

In a high-conflict family dispute involving competing motions for temporary custody of three children, the court was faced with extensive, untested affidavit evidence containing serious and conflicting allegations between the parents.

Investigations by police and child protection authorities did not result in charges or protection findings.

Given the imminence of a scheduled trial and the incomplete evidentiary record, the court declined to determine the temporary custody issues on the motion.

The court held that credibility assessments and a full evidentiary record were required and therefore left the issues for determination by the trial judge.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that two children were in need of protection, and that they be made wards of the Crown for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother contested the motion and sought return of the children to her care pursuant to a supervision order.

The respondent father sought an adjournment.

The court found that the children were in need of protection based on the chronically poor condition of the mother's home, her inability to consistently meet the children's needs, and findings from a parenting capacity assessment indicating developmental delay and personality features that prevented adequate parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the children Crown wards, and ordered supervised access for the mother at least once every two months.

Following an earlier endorsement that did not address costs, counsel for the applicant requested that the court determine the costs of a motion.

The court reviewed the prior endorsement and noted that the issue underlying the motion involved findings of credibility regarding settled intention.

Given that credibility determinations would ultimately be made at trial, the court declined to determine costs at this stage.

Instead, costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

A father brought a motion seeking to vary a 2002 interim custody order and formalize a long‑standing parenting arrangement under which the children primarily resided with him during school weeks and with the mother on weekends.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking to set aside a recent temporary order granting the father custody and instead sought interim custody and a week‑about parenting schedule.

The court found that, despite the earlier order granting the mother custody, the parties had for many years followed a different residential routine and that continuation of the original order was no longer in the children’s best interests.

Emphasizing stability during the school year and the children’s educational and developmental needs, the court concluded that the established routine—school weeks with the father and weekends with the mother—should continue on an interim basis.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the parties sought directions relating to custody, support, and property issues following marital breakdown.

The matter involved disputes over custody of the child of the marriage, the status of a stepchild as a child of the marriage, spousal support, and the proposed sale of the matrimonial home.

The court addressed significant delay in service of the application and considered the high-conflict environment between the parties while they continued to reside in the same residence.

Orders were made for disclosure, a clinical assessment by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, screening for alcohol dependency, and steps to list and sell the matrimonial home.

The matter was adjourned to a settlement/trial management conference with interim procedural directions.