Emma Costain

The parties, parents of a young child, both brought motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The applicant father sought to admit a Family Court Clinic Assessment report from a prior child protection proceeding into evidence, while the respondent mother sought increased supervised parenting time.

The court held that under section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the report itself is inadmissible without the mother's consent, but the assessor may be called to testify regarding their opinions and recommendations.

The court also granted the mother's request for increased parenting time, adding one weekday evening to her schedule.

The applicant father scheduled a motion for increased parenting time without first holding a case conference, contrary to a prior court order.

The judge declined to hear the motion and instead conducted a case conference.

The parties reached a consent order regarding the father's parenting time, attendance at parenting courses, a request for an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation, and attendance at a medical appointment for their child.

The father's motion may be rescheduled if necessary.

The applicant father brought a motion for parenting time and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement following his release from prison.

The respondent mother opposed direct contact, citing the children's resistance.

The court declined to order graduated access due to concerns about the children's well-being and lack of reliable evidence regarding their views.

Instead, the court ordered interim contact via a letter and a videoconference facilitated by the children's counsellor, pending further information and OCL involvement.

The moving party father sought a retroactive finding that he overpaid child support from 2010 to 2016 and an order for reimbursement of $39,975, arguing the adult children were no longer dependants.

The responding party mother opposed, citing delay and lack of notice, and argued the funds were used for the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the children's entitlement had terminated, the father's delay, his historical underpayment of support based on his actual income, and the mother's use of the funds for the children weighed against ordering reimbursement.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a motion without notice against properties owned by corporations controlled by his son, alleging the son misappropriated funds while acting as his attorney for property.

The defendants moved to set aside the CPL for failure to make full and fair disclosure, or alternatively to discharge it under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the son's legal representation, the CPL would have been granted regardless.

The court also declined to discharge the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the properties and that the balance of equities favoured maintaining the CPL.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on issues of custody and child support, the applicant sought costs of $78,656.48 on a full recovery basis.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide disclosure, failing to prepare for trial, and ignoring multiple reasonable offers to settle made by the applicant.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Furthermore, the court ordered that the entire costs award be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support pursuant to section 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

This trial addressed custody and access for two children, Mathieu and Alexandre, along with retroactive and prospective table child support, section 7 expenses, extended health coverage, security for child support, and costs.

The applicant sought sole custody, emphasizing her role as the primary caregiver and the respondent's failure to administer medication for their special needs child.

The respondent alleged parental alienation and sought sole custody or joint custody.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct and lack of insight into the children's needs detrimental.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and ordered child support and arrears, along with contributions to daycare and hockey expenses.