Fola Adekusibe

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage with four children.

The applicant sought sole custody, spousal support, and occupation rent, while the respondent sought joint custody and primary residence.

The case involved high conflict, with the applicant making numerous unfounded reports of child abuse to the police and CAS.

The court relied on an OCL assessment, finding that the applicant was traumatized by the respondent's controlling behaviour during the marriage.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding joint custody unworkable due to the power imbalance and conflict.

The applicant was found entitled to compensatory spousal support and occupation rent for the period the respondent lived in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant was substantially successful on a motion to vary a temporary access order.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent argued that because the applicant's counsel was retained on a Legal Aid Certificate, costs should be limited to the Legal Aid rate.

The court rejected this argument, holding that Legal Aid status does not limit the costs recoverable to the Legal Aid rate.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,886.73.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order to allow the children to transfer to schools near her residence, based on the recommendations of an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinical investigation report.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for various relief, arguing the OCL report should be tested at trial.

The court found that the completion of the OCL report and the father's undermining behaviour constituted a material change in circumstances.

Finding exceptional circumstances that required immediate action in the children's best interests, the court granted the mother's motion, ordered the school transfer, and adjusted the father's access schedule accordingly.

This was a family costs endorsement following an interim custody motion involving domestic violence allegations, competing claims of success, and a section 30 assessment.

The court held the applicant was substantially successful because the respondent sought to extend a temporary order effectively preserving his sole custody position, while the resulting order instead granted the applicant temporary sole custody.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found no basis for elevated costs but awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant recovered $9,163.85 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

On a motion concerning interim custody and access, the respondent mother sought reconsideration of an earlier interim arrangement that had placed the three eldest children primarily with the moving party father pursuant to a parenting assessment.

Newly disclosed police and Children’s Aid Society records alleged a pattern of domestic violence by the father toward the mother, sometimes in the presence of the children.

The court admitted the police and child protection records under hearsay exceptions and considered them in assessing the children’s best interests under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act.

Finding credible evidence of domestic violence and domineering behaviour that undermined the mother’s role and posed a risk of harm to the children, the court rejected continuation of the existing arrangement.

The mother was granted temporary sole custody with a structured parenting schedule preserving significant contact with the father and safeguards pending investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The respondent spouse brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and multiple prior family court orders, arguing he had never been served with the originating application and related documents.

The court reviewed the service rules under Rule 6 of the Family Law Rules and the test for setting aside default judgments articulated in appellate authority.

Although the moving party acted promptly after learning of the enforcement proceedings, the court found no plausible explanation for his failure to respond where service had been effected at his residence and he admitted ignoring his mail.

The court declined to set aside most prior orders, including those granting exclusive possession and authorizing sale of the matrimonial home.

However, the order noting the moving party in default was set aside and leave was granted to file an Answer and participate in the remaining support and equalization proceedings.

The applicant, an accident benefits analyst, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She claimed the respondent failed to accommodate her eye disability by not reducing her workload and requiring her to complete short-term disability forms.

She also alleged racial profiling during a training session and a discriminatory workplace investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had appropriately accommodated her disability by reducing her workload and allowing breaks, and that the applicant failed to cooperate by refusing to provide requested medical information.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination or reprisal in the respondent's actions.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented subject to the corporate respondent accepting vicarious liability.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and had the ability to remedy any Code infringement.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents from the proceeding.