Frances P. Kiteley

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a child protection order for delay or, in the alternative, on the merits.

The father had experienced delays in obtaining legal aid and transcripts, and had recently been charged with criminal offences resulting in a bail condition prohibiting contact with the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and that the appeal had merit.

The court emphasized that the father is presumed innocent of the criminal charges and that the appeal could be heard before the expiration of the current supervision order.

The Applicant and Respondent, who were together for over 15 years and have three children, separated in January 2014.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim relief.

The Respondent sought temporary custody, increased child support, temporary spousal support, and release of all condominium sale proceeds.

The Applicant sought to decrease child support, dismiss spousal support, and divide proceeds equally with credits.

The court confirmed the Applicant's income at $51,556 for temporary child support, dismissing both parties' requests to change it.

Temporary spousal support was declined, though the Respondent was found entitled in principle, pending further medical disclosure regarding her ability to work.

Temporary custody was granted to the Respondent by consent.

A portion of the Applicant's share of the condominium sale proceeds was ordered to be paid to the Respondent for special expenses and ongoing child support.

A settlement conference was scheduled.

The applicant brought a motion seeking reimbursement for s. 7 expenses, further advances, and orders regarding a child's treatment and custody.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with s. 7 expense orders, including failing to pay tuition, which caused a crisis for one child.

The court ordered the respondent to immediately reimburse the applicant for a specific university tuition payment.

The remaining s. 7 claims and the motions concerning the child's custody and treatment were adjourned, with the court noting the respondent's lack of collaboration and late disclosure as contributing factors to the ongoing issues and delays.

Directions for cost submissions were also provided, with the court highlighting the respondent's conduct.

This motion concerned a long-standing custody dispute between self-represented parents regarding their child, William, born in 2001.

The respondent mother sought a temporary order to change custody of William, allowing him to reside with her in New Brunswick for the 2016-2017 school year.

Despite the mother's history of non-compliance with previous court orders and creating family chaos, the court granted the temporary order, acknowledging William's consistent preference to live with his mother and aiming to end years of conflict.

The court retained Ontario's jurisdiction and imposed several ancillary conditions, including continued involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, arrangements for William's visits with the father, and access to school records.

The Applicant sought final sole custody, no access for the Respondent, and permission to relocate with the children to Australia.

The Respondent sought therapeutic supervised access and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the Applicant final sole custody and permission to relocate, dismissing the Respondent's motion for therapeutic supervised access, citing the Respondent's past criminal conduct against the children and paternal grandmother.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to deny access and permit relocation.

The Respondent was granted temporary spousal support in a reduced lump sum, with the court departing from Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) calculations due to the unique circumstances and the Respondent's conduct.

The father, Robert Keith Glegg, brought a motion to set aside a prior order declaring his daughter, Olivia Glegg, an independent minor who had withdrawn from parental control, and sought temporary or permanent custody.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that Olivia, being over 16, had a common law and statutory right to withdraw from parental control, and that the father was not entitled to be a party or receive notice of the original declaration application.

The court emphasized Olivia's articulate and thoughtful reasons for her decisions, including accelerating her university entrance and attending a university in Florida, which were deemed to be in her best interests.

The applicant brought a motion without notice seeking the return of his passport, the wiping out of child support arrears, and a declaration that a 2013 Ontario provisional order reducing his child support was in force.

The provisional order had been sent to New Brunswick, where the respondent resides, but the New Brunswick court refused to confirm it in 2015.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to order Passport Canada or the New Brunswick Family Responsibility Office to take action, nor could it declare the unconfirmed provisional order to be in force or wipe out the arrears.

Mr. Brown applied to vary child support and vacate arrears under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

Ms. Navas cross-applied to recalculate support and arrears.

The court found Mr. Brown was entitled to a 50% reduction of arrears accumulated between February 2013 and January 2015 due to enforcement issues, but dismissed his undue hardship claim.

The court granted Ms. Navas's request to recalculate child support from February 2015 onwards based on Mr. Brown's actual income, dismissing her request for earlier retroactive recalculation.

This endorsement addresses an oral motion brought by applicants in four consolidated parentage applications involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

The motion sought to dispense with the Superior Court of Justice Practice Direction's requirements for formal notice and media notification regarding discretionary publication bans and sealing orders under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the Dagenais/Mentuck test and the best interests of the child, finding that sealing orders are necessary to prevent serious risk to the proper administration of justice and to protect the privacy and dignity of the children, intended parents, surrogates, and their families.

The court concluded that the salutary effects of dispensing with notice and sealing the files outweigh any deleterious effects on public expression.

The Applicant sought an order for $500,000 in interim disbursements for legal and valuation costs in a family law proceeding where she was attempting to set aside a separation agreement.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the Applicant's claims had merit but criticized her for "splitting her case" in her reply affidavit regarding cost calculations and efforts to secure financing.

The court also noted the Applicant's failure to adequately explain past costs despite favourable awards and her insufficient efforts to self-finance.

Considering the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs requiring expert review, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $140,000 in interim disbursements, allocated equally between expert and legal fees, payable in two installments.

The applicant sought a non-dissipation and preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dealing with assets, particularly shares in his private corporations, pending trial.

The court considered the strength of the applicant's case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

While the applicant had an unassailable claim for spousal support and an arguable case for an equalization payment, the court found no risk of dissipation by the respondent, who had complied with temporary support orders and demonstrated efforts to grow his business.

Granting the order would severely cripple the respondent's companies, causing irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay agreed-upon costs, to be set off against future payments.

The respondent mother brought a motion to temporarily change custody and access, while the applicant father cross-moved for a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's bail conditions prohibiting communication with the respondent, which was fundamental to their joint custody arrangement.

The court declined to grant the respondent sole custody or supervised access, finding it premature and not in the children's best interests at this stage.

However, the court granted the respondent temporary sole authority for educational decisions for one child, made orders for summer arrangements, and directed a referral for therapeutic intervention for the family.

The court also consolidated the files and converted a previous "final" order into a "temporary" order, scheduling a case conference to address outstanding issues.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion brought by the Applicant under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the Applicant securing significant asset preservation orders while the Respondent successfully resisted broader relief.

The Respondent's prior unreasonable conduct justified the Applicant's motion, but both parties acted reasonably during the motion itself and in their settlement efforts.

Considering these factors, the court awarded the Applicant full disbursements and approximately 50% of her legal fees.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions brought by both parties, which involved parenting and procedural issues.

The court found that neither party achieved clear success on the parenting issues, and success was divided on procedural matters.

The respondent sought partial or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith, noting that both parties contributed to the procedural wrangling and conflict.

Despite the applicant making a timely offer to settle, the court concluded that neither party should be vindicated by a costs award.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party for the motions.

This endorsement addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning child support and s.7 expenses.

The court scheduled a settlement conference prior to the appeal hearing, emphasizing the exchange of offers to settle.

It also issued an order allowing for a paperless/electronic appeal, with counsel responsible for ensuring technology is in place, and requiring a paper copy of the respondent's factum.

At the resumption of a family law trial, the husband brought a motion for an adjournment because he was in India and unable to retrieve his passport to travel to Canada.

The court granted the adjournment but noted significant non-compliance by both parties with a previous detailed trial management endorsement.

To ensure the trial proceeded in an orderly fashion and concluded within the available time, the court imposed strict time limits pursuant to Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, allocating 35 hours to each party for all steps in the trial.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where Rajeev Singh Chandel was successful in obtaining an order for payment out of funds held in trust.

Alka Singh failed to comply with court directions regarding the submission of costs materials, including page limits and deadlines, and her submissions were significantly overdue and over-length.

The court found Mr. Chandel was entitled to costs under rule 24(1) and rejected Ms. Singh's arguments of misconduct, indigence, or that Mr. Chandel's success was a "technicality." The court awarded Mr. Chandel partial indemnity costs, recognizing the additional work necessitated by Ms. Singh's non-compliance with procedural directions, specifically her excessive motion record.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed, relying on an Iranian marriage contract and seeking to freeze the funds as security for an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding that while the applicant established entitlement, his financial stress would be alleviated by the release of the home proceeds.

The court ordered the equal division and release of the $480,000 held in trust, rejecting the respondent's attempt to freeze the funds under section 12 of the Family Law Act.

At a case conference, the court addressed scheduling issues arising from the late delivery of the respondent's disclosure and expert reports.

The court directed that the applicant's motion for interim disbursements proceed in writing due to counsel scheduling conflicts.

The court also scheduled a combined trial management and settlement conference and declined to reserve the costs of the case conferences to the trial judge, ordering that neither party recover costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order regarding child access and therapeutic services for the two children, Sarolt and Kinga.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain existing therapeutic services for Sarolt, adjust cost sharing, and increase the father's access to Kinga.

The court granted the agreed-upon adjustment for Kinga's Wednesday overnight access but dismissed the father's request for alternate weekend access and his proposal to switch Sarolt's therapeutic supervision from Brayden Supervision Services to Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO).

The mother's request to change the cost-sharing proportion for Brayden services was also dismissed, maintaining the 50/50 split.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the need for stability, and the crucial role of Brayden's therapeutic intervention for Sarolt.