Foluke A. Ololade

The parties separated and the mother sought to restrict the father's parenting time to supervised visits, alleging a history of family violence, sexual abuse, and abduction risk.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and a determination of his child support obligations based on his income earned in Nigeria, converted at a black market exchange rate, with a reduction for undue hardship due to travel costs.

The court found the mother's allegations of sexual abuse and abduction risk to be unsubstantiated and granted the father unsupervised regular and holiday parenting time.

For child support, the court rejected the black market exchange rate, applying the Receiver General of Canada rate instead.

Due to the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his intentional under-employment, the court imputed his income at $50,000.

The father's claim for undue hardship was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay $755 per month in child support.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Mother's status review application, which sought to terminate the Crown ward status of her child, TAK, and return TAK to her custody.

The court reviewed the evidence, including expert reports on TAK's trauma and consistent views against returning to the Mother.

Applying the summary judgment principles and the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, dismissing the Mother's application, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and stability.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and various financial payments.

The respondent father sought 50/50 custody, opposed spousal support, and most financial claims.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the mother, but found the mother more responsible for communication difficulties.

Spousal support was dismissed due to the mother's deemed income and lack of demonstrated need, and the father's difficult financial position.

Child support was maintained as per a temporary order, with arrears paid at a reduced rate.

The court also made various orders regarding parenting time and specific financial claims, largely favouring the father on the financial disputes.

Following a family law trial concerning child support and contribution to extraordinary expenses, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining an order for ongoing child support based on imputed income and payment of section 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court confirmed that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs.

While the respondent sought full recovery costs exceeding $13,000, the court found several time entries excessive and considered the reasonableness of both parties’ conduct.

Balancing the relevant factors and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the applicant to pay reduced costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought a determination on custody, access, child support, and section 7 expenses for their four-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that despite past conflict, both parents were loving and the child was thriving in their care.

The court ordered joint custody with a detailed access schedule, imputed an income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, and ordered the parents to equally share section 7 expenses including Montessori school tuition.

Following the breakdown of a long-term traditional marriage, the court determined issues relating to child support, extraordinary expenses for adult dependent children attending university, spousal support, arrears, and related financial obligations.

The respondent’s income was accepted at $90,000 and child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court rejected allegations of deliberate underemployment and imputed income of $10,000 to the applicant due to limited efforts toward self‑sufficiency.

Spousal support was ordered at the midpoint of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range on an indefinite basis subject to review.

The court also fixed child and spousal support arrears, allocated post-secondary expenses proportionally, and ordered life insurance and financial disclosure.