Gary Lloyd Gottlieb

This is a costs endorsement following a supplemental costs order.

The applicant, Mr. S, sought recovery of costs from the respondent, Ms. A, which included previous contempt penalties, appeal costs, motion costs, and trial costs.

Ms. A had filed for bankruptcy and sought to adjourn the costs hearing, which was dismissed.

The court confirmed Mr. S's entitlement to set off outstanding costs against child and spousal support.

Mr. S requested over $53,000 in costs for the hearing, while Ms. A argued for each party to bear their own costs or pay $13,000.

The court disallowed costs for multiple counsel (except for a bankruptcy lawyer whose retention was deemed necessary due to Ms. A's arguments) and noted the absence of an offer to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court awarded Mr. S a partial recovery of $27,685, citing the lack of effort to resolve costs as a factor for the partial award.

The applicant father sought to set off retroactive child support and section 7 expenses against a substantial costs award owed to him by the respondent mother, who had declared bankruptcy.

The court granted the set-off, finding that the respondent had litigated with impunity and that the children would not suffer undue hardship.

The court also provided directions on future spousal support and ongoing child support issues, noting that ongoing spousal support could not be crystallized into a lump sum due to potential for variation.

This motion concerned temporary parenting arrangements for a 3-year-old child following an emergency ex parte order.

The applicant father initially sought continued supervised parenting time for the respondent mother due to concerns about her mental health and erratic behavior, including frequent calls to the police and paramedics.

The mother refuted these claims, alleging psychological and financial abuse by the father and his family, and sought unsupervised parenting time and a set schedule.

The court found that continued supervision of the mother was not warranted, attributing her past behavior to separation stress and lack of support, noting she was seeking medical assistance.

The court established a new temporary parenting schedule, including overnight time for the father, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact with both parents.

The decision also ordered the parties to use a co-parenting communication app and for the mother to engage in therapy.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order transferring primary care of the parties' two children to the respondent father, which included an initial period of no contact for the mother and a staged increase in parenting time.

The trial judge's decision, made after a 39-day trial, found the mother had intentionally undermined parenting schedules and made false allegations of sexual abuse to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's exercise of discretion and factual findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in parenting orders, especially when the decision has already been implemented.

The court found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her consideration of the Divorce Act regarding family violence, as the mother's allegations were not established.

The appellant (P.I.A.) sought a stay of a trial judge's order transferring primary care and decision-making responsibility of two children to the respondent (W.S.), pending appeal.

The motion judge applied the three-part test for a stay (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience), with the overriding consideration being the children's best interests.

While a low threshold for serious question was met on one ground (admissibility of expert evidence), the court found no evidence of irreparable harm to the children and determined the balance of convenience favored maintaining the trial judge's order to restore the parenting relationship with the respondent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Children’s Aid Society brought a motion to quash a second appeal by the mother in a child protection matter.

The appeal concerned a temporary order that had since expired and was therefore moot.

The court found no reason to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal, as it would not advance the child's interests and ongoing factual issues belonged in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The motion to quash was granted.

A motion by the respondent father (VF) to split a child protection status review application into two separate cases was dismissed.

The application involved three children with two different fathers and a common mother.

VF sought to separate the case involving his child from the case involving the other father's children, citing privacy concerns regarding his criminal history involving child pornography convictions.

The court found that splitting the cases would not result in fairness to all parties, would not protect the interests of all children, and would not save time and expense.

The central issue of VF's criminal convictions, rehabilitation, and ongoing risk to all children required unified proceedings.

This preliminary ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence in affidavits filed in support of competing custody and access motions, and the father's motion for production of the mother's health records.

The court found that the mother's family physician, Dr. Henrikson, is a participant expert whose reports qualify as practitioner's reports admissible under section 52 of the Evidence Act and rule 20.2(15) of the Family Law Rules, despite being unsworn.

The court ordered production of the mother's clinical notes and records concerning her mental health from 2017 to present, subject to strict terms and conditions protecting her privacy, balancing the father's right to fair process against the mother's privacy interests and the children's best interests.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order finding her child in need of protection due to parental alienation and false allegations of abuse against the father.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA, specifically regarding the weight given to the child's views, consideration of relevant risk factors, delegation of future access decisions to the Children's Aid Society, and the issuance of a no-recording order.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's views were not independent due to the mother's brainwashing, that the risk of emotional harm to the child if remaining with the mother was overwhelming, and that the discretionary access order and no-recording order were within the court's jurisdiction and in the child's best interests.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding two young children: a five-year-old autistic boy and an eight-month-old infant.

The society sought placement of both children in its care, citing multiple protection concerns including the mother's apparent mental health issues, failure to meet the children's medical and nutritional needs, inadequate supervision resulting in injuries, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to ensure the older child's school attendance and special needs support.

The father faced criminal charges for assault and was subject to a no-contact order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that supervision orders would be inadequate to mitigate those risks.

Both children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Ottawa to live with her new husband, a diplomat.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody with parallel parenting arrangements.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Ottawa, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver since the child's birth and that the proposed move was in the child's best interests.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the father including alternate weekends and extended holiday access, and ordered child support and section 7 expense contributions.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding.

The father sought costs against both the Children's Aid Society of Toronto and the mother following a protection application.

The father claimed the society failed to involve him for over one year despite having joint custody of two of the children and despite multiple concerning incidents that should have prompted contact.

The court found the society's conduct in failing to notify the father was patently unfair and indefensible, constituting misconduct on substantive issues rather than mere procedural irregularity.

However, the court found that earlier involvement of the father would not necessarily have changed the society's recommendations or outcome.

The court awarded costs against the society as a matter of accountability and to discourage similar conduct, but declined to award costs against the mother due to her serious mental health issues.

The society was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the father.

In a child protection proceeding, the court determined motions regarding medical decision-making authority and school placement for a child with ADHD and learning disabilities.

The mother sought to retain decision-making authority based on her historical involvement in medical decisions, while the father sought authority to make medical decisions, particularly regarding ADHD medication (Biphentin).

The court found both parents had acted contrary to the child's best interests by allowing parental conflict to cloud their judgment.

The court ordered both parents to jointly consult with an ADHD specialist and follow that specialist's recommendations.

The child was to remain in his current school pending further order.

The issue of which parent should have final medical decision-making authority was not determined on the motion but was to be resolved through further court process if the parties could not agree.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision concerning parenting arrangements for a 14-month-old child.

The maternal grandparents were granted temporary custody with limited supervised access for the parents.

The maternal grandparents sought costs of $30,932.17, while the parents requested no costs or costs fixed at $5,628.05.

The court found the maternal grandparents were successful parties entitled to costs but reduced the award significantly due to excessive time claims, the parents' limited financial circumstances, and concerns that the claimed amount could be used to intimidate the parents from pursuing legitimate positions.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing August 1, 2018.

A costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning a father's access to a 13-year-old child, custody incidents, and child support.

The mother was substantially successful on all issues.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $160 per month retroactive to April 1, 2015, based on imputed income of $20,000, and $2,700 towards retroactive special expenses.

The mother was granted the ability to travel with the child outside Canada without the father's consent.

Access was to be in accordance with the child's wishes.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, finding the father acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings.

The applicant, Samantha Abigail Lawrence, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the child, Solomon, orders for travel documents (Canadian passport and Nexus card) without the respondent's consent, and retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent, Nicholas Cordell Riley, who was self-represented and resided in Maryland, sought joint physical and legal custody and a revised child support order.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, confirmed and extended travel orders, established specific Skype access for the respondent, and ordered ongoing and significant retroactive child support, noting the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure.

In this highly contested family law motion, the court addressed competing disclosure and procedural requests from both parents in a custody and access dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.

The respondent sought production of communications with experts and the applicant's mental health records, while the applicant sought questioning of the respondent and an expert, as well as Crown disclosure.

The court granted partial relief to both parties, balancing the need for fair trial preparation against privacy interests and litigation efficiency.

The court approved mutual questioning of the parties but denied questioning of the jointly retained expert, granted production of the applicant's mental health records to the respondent's counsel (with restrictions), denied production of privileged communications with experts, and ordered a structured timeline for Crown disclosure.

The applicant sought costs related to parenting issues after a settlement was reached on both parenting and financial matters at the outset of trial.

The court found that success on parenting issues was divided and that the respondent, a self-represented litigant, had acted reasonably in negotiations, securing more favourable terms than the applicant's offer.

The court declined to award costs, emphasizing the importance of encouraging settlement and not "pre-judging" the outcome of issues resolved through negotiation.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary custody of two children, supervised access for the father, and a restraining order.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, equal time-sharing, and transfer of the case to Guelph.

The court found evidence of domestic violence by the father against the mother and awarded temporary custody to the mother with limited unsupervised access to the father on Saturdays.

A restraining order was granted restricting the father's contact with the mother.

The case was transferred to Guelph as the children's ordinary residence, though the mother was not required to relocate.