Glenda Perry

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated August 8, 2016, seeking to reduce his monthly support obligation from $773 to $150 per month based on claimed income of $8,652 per year, and to rescind all accumulated arrears.

The mother cross-moved to dismiss the motion and to increase support based on imputed income of $83,517 per year.

The court found the father intentionally underemployed, rejected his claims of medical disability, found his education/retraining plan unreasonable and unsupported, and determined the father had engaged in intentional deception and gamesmanship throughout the proceedings.

The court imputed income of $59,491 per year retroactive to March 17, 2015, resulting in increased monthly support obligations and a conduct order restricting future motions without court permission.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for three children.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,843 after obtaining a successful judgment on most issues, including sole custody of the children.

The respondent (father) failed to file costs submissions within the required timeline and subsequently sought his own costs in his response, which the court found procedurally improper and substantively without merit.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $22,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the respondent's unreasonable conduct, limited financial circumstances, and poor litigation decisions.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for three children, including one with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The mother sought sole custody, restrictions on the father's contact, and retroactive child support.

The father sought joint custody with parallel parenting and extended access.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the father, his alcohol abuse, and his failure to support the children financially.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access exchanges, restricted the father's contact with the mother, and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the child's habitual residence was in Toronto, Ontario, thereby establishing jurisdiction for the Ontario Court of Justice to make custody and access orders.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Edmonton, Alberta in November 2016 without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court determined that the mother's removal was surreptitious and that the father did not consent to or acquiesce in the move.

The court found that the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of proceedings and that Ontario retained jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision following a Hague Convention application.

The father sought the return of two children wrongfully retained in Canada by the mother.

The father was entirely successful in his application, with the court finding overwhelming evidence that the children's habitual residence was the United Kingdom and that the father had not consented to or acquiesced in their retention in Canada.

The court awarded costs to the father on both a full recovery basis under the Family Law Rules and under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, finding the mother's conduct unreasonable in proceeding to trial without adequate evidence to support her claims.

Two child protection matters raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the five‑day statutory deadline for bringing an apprehended child before the court under s. 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondents argued the applications were late because the societies waited until the sixth calendar day following apprehension.

The court held that the computation provisions in the Legislation Act, 2006 apply unless a contrary legislative intention appears.

Because the fifth day fell on Easter Monday when the court was closed, the statutory deadline was extended to the next business day.

The applications were therefore brought within the legally defined five‑day period and the court retained jurisdiction.

Two consolidated child protection cases raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the interpretation of the five-day time limit in subsection 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent A.H. argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Children's Aid Society failed to bring the matter before the court within five calendar days of the child's apprehension, as the fifth day fell on Easter Monday, a statutory holiday.

The court held that the provisions of the Legislation Act, 2006 apply to the time limit, extending it to the next day that is not a holiday when the deadline falls on a holiday or when the court office is closed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear both cases.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order made by Justice Nevins on January 26, 2015, granting the applicant mother sole custody of their child, a restraining order, and child support.

The father was not properly served with the original application, as the process server filed a false affidavit of service.

The court found that the father was entitled to have the order set aside because he was never properly served and had no notice of the proceeding.

The court set aside the default order and made temporary orders granting the mother custody pending a new application in British Columbia, where the child now resides, and granting the father Skype access to the child.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day family law trial involving access, custody, a restraining order, and child support.

The applicant mother was substantially successful, obtaining day access with supervised exchanges, a final restraining order, retroactive child support, and imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent's pleadings on support issues were struck due to non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The mother sought costs of $5,550, while the respondent claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 45 days.

The mother brought a motion to change the final access order to permit relocation with the parties' 11-year-old child to Barbados for one year, and to change the final support order retroactively to January 1, 2008.

The father opposed the relocation but the court granted it with specified access.

On the support issue, the court found that the mother provided reasonable justification for her delay in seeking increased support, that the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income increases, and that a retroactive support order was warranted.

The court made the support order retroactive to July 1, 2013, when the mother first broached the subject of increased support with the father.

The father's ongoing child support obligation was set based on his income of $71,642 for 2016.

The mother sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport and government documents for the parties' 10-year-old child and to travel outside Canada for vacation purposes without the father's consent.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the mother was a flight risk and sought to sever his relationship with the child, particularly regarding travel to non-Hague Convention countries.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk, was strongly connected to Canada, and had no intention of removing the child to sever the father-child relationship.

The court granted the mother's request with notice requirements to the father.

The applicant mother sought a specified access schedule for two younger children, a non-removal order restricting the father from taking the children outside Ontario and Quebec, a final restraining order against the father, retroactive child support from July 1, 2011, an order for the father to maintain extended health benefits, and restrictions on the father's communication with the children.

The respondent father opposed the access proposal and sought custody despite a prior custody order, opposed retroactive support, and sought to exchange children in Kingston and travel outside Canada with them.

The court granted the mother's access proposals with detailed restrictions, issued a non-removal order, granted a restraining order, found jurisdiction to award retroactive support despite one child aging out of eligibility, calculated retroactive support arrears of $13,989.40 as of September 30, 2015, and established a repayment schedule of $219 per month for arrears beginning January 1, 2016.

A focused trial concerning child support and a restraining order in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $32,928 retroactive to February 1, 2014, and a restraining order prohibiting the respondent father from contacting or coming within 500 metres of her and the children except for access purposes.

The respondent agreed to income imputation of $31,000 but opposed the restraining order.

The court found the father engaged in intentional underemployment, imputed income of $32,980, ordered retroactive child support from February 1, 2014, and granted the restraining order based on evidence of extensive domestic violence and abuse.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion to change a custody and access order.

The mother sought full recovery of costs ($14,046.58) after successfully defending against the father's motion to change, which sought access to three children and termination of a restraining order.

The father's motion was dismissed on the basis that he had not established a material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $7,200 (inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST) after considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the father's limited financial circumstances, and the principle that costs awards must be proportional to the amount in issue and the outcome.

The father brought a motion to change a July 2013 order granting the mother sole custody of three children with no access to the father and a restraining order.

The father claimed a material change in circumstances, citing withdrawal of criminal charges, completion of an anger management program, and stabilized mental health.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to dismiss it.

The court found that while the father demonstrated some changes, these did not constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children.

The court was troubled by the father's lack of credibility, his false statements in affidavits about his mental health and criminal history, and his continued denial of abuse allegations despite corroborating police and medical records.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was prohibited from bringing further motions to change prior to January 1, 2016 without court permission.

The applicant sought a refraining order preventing the Family Responsibility Office from suspending his driver's licence and initiating a federal passport denial application in relation to alleged spousal support arrears.

The motion arose in unusual circumstances because the applicant asserted that signed Minutes of Settlement finally resolved support and extinguished arrears, and alternatively sought retroactive variation based on a substantial post-order income decline and credit for prior undisclosed payments.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant relief in relation to both the provincial licence suspension regime and the federal passport denial regime, rejecting the position that the federal statute barred such an order.

On the evidence, the applicant established a prima facie case, demonstrated that loss of his licence and passport would impair his ability to earn income and care for the children residing with him, and obtained the refraining order subject to continued support payments under the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the automatic stay imposed on her custody and access application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father had commenced a divorce proceeding in Superior Court of Justice seeking joint custody.

The court considered whether to lift the stay by examining bad faith, prejudice, and waste of court resources.

The court found that the father's divorce application was premature, issued after being served with the mother's application and despite knowing a court date was already scheduled.

The court determined that all issues except the divorce itself could be dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice and that the mother would suffer prejudice if required to proceed in Superior Court, particularly given language barriers and her vulnerability to the father's control.

The motion was granted and the automatic stay was lifted.

The applicant father sought an order under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction directing the return of his adopted daughter E. to Hungary after the respondent mother wrongfully removed and retained the child in Canada without notice.

The respondent resisted the application, invoking exceptions under Articles 13(b) and 20 of the Convention, claiming that return would expose the child to grave risk of physical and psychological harm due to persecution of Roma people in Hungary and the respondent's activism, and that the child's wishes should be respected.

The court found that the child was wrongfully retained, that the respondent failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception on the balance of probabilities, and that while the child expressed a preference to remain in Canada, this preference was influenced by the respondent and did not override the principles of the Convention.

The court ordered the child's return to Hungary.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings or dismiss his claims due to his failure to comply with a consent disclosure order and the Child Support Guidelines.

The father, a self-employed locksmith, failed to provide complete tax returns, business records, and other financial documents despite multiple requests and a court order.

The court found the father demonstrated a complete disdain for court orders and the rules.

The court dismissed the father's case, ordered final supervised access, and allowed the mother to proceed with her claims unopposed.