Gloria Antwi

The applicant mother and respondent father sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for their 4-year-old child.

The court ordered a 5-5-2-2 shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests as he was accustomed to shared care and was starting school.

Joint decision-making was ordered, with the mother having final say on education and the father on extracurriculars.

For child support, the court imputed income to both parents, including undeclared tip income for the mother, and ordered offset child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a 2001 California child support order in Ontario, arguing lack of notice, no reasonable opportunity to be heard, and public policy concerns including income misattribution, disputed paternity, and delayed enforcement.

The applicant opposed, asserting proper notice and the respondent's deliberate avoidance of obligations.

The court found the respondent had proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and his credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies and bad faith conduct.

The court rejected the public policy arguments, emphasizing that this defense should not interfere with foreign courts' findings of fact when proper process was followed.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, and the registration of the California order was confirmed.

The applicant father sought directions to enforce a previous court order requiring the respondent mother to return their children to Nigeria.

The mother, who had unlawfully abducted the children to Canada, failed to cooperate with travel arrangements, including required COVID-19 testing and Yellow Fever vaccinations.

The court ordered the Waterloo Regional Police to take the children to obtain the necessary medical procedures to facilitate their return flight, noting the mother's distress but emphasizing the need for compliance with the final orders.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order requiring the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria and dismissing her motion for temporary custody in Ontario.

The mother had brought the children from Nigeria to Canada without the father's consent.

On appeal, she argued the motion judge erred in finding the children would not suffer serious harm if returned, in failing to give sufficient weight to the children's views, and in proceeding by way of a long motion rather than a trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the mother failed to meet the test under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The record did not establish a probability of serious harm, and the motion judge reasonably concluded a trial was unnecessary.

The appellant mother abducted her children and brought them to Canada in violation of a valid divorce order from Nigeria.

The motion judge ordered the children's return to Nigeria.

The mother appealed the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the evidence fell short of establishing the children would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court ordered the children to be returned within 14 days and awarded costs to the respondent father.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant for the return of the parties' children to Nigeria.

The court found the respondent's conduct in unilaterally removing the children from Nigeria was unreasonable.

Crucially, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith by presenting a purported travel consent document that was not authentic and by intentionally deceiving the court regarding the father's consent.

Despite this finding of bad faith on a specific issue, and the applicant seeking full recovery costs of $79,900, the court applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the overall nature of the proceeding (a motion, not a trial) and the respondent's ability to pay.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments.

The father brought a motion to enforce a Nigerian custody order and seek the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria after the mother unilaterally moved them to Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, arguing the children would face serious harm if returned due to country conditions and alleged past domestic violence.

The court recognized the Nigerian order under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found the children were wrongfully removed, and concluded the mother failed to establish a risk of serious harm under s. 23.

The father's motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nigeria.

The applicant father sought an urgent hearing for the return of his two daughters to Nigeria, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, determined whether the matter was urgent.

Despite the father's claim of international kidnapping, the court found the matter not urgent due to global travel restrictions and the children's safety and well-being being protected by remaining with the mother in Ontario.

The court emphasized that the urgency determination was summary and without prejudice to the substantive motion.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change the children's primary residence, the applicant father sought costs of $68,490.51 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the father's bill of costs inappropriately included fees for the entire litigation rather than just the motion.

The court rejected the father's allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the mother.

Recognizing the importance of proportionality in family law matters, the court fixed costs at $6,500 inclusive, payable in installments.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the applicant father's home in Waterford to her residence in Toronto pending trial.

The father had been granted temporary sole custody a year prior after the mother removed the children without consent.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that established temporary primary residency orders should not be changed pending trial absent compelling evidence of absolute necessity.

The court found the evidence regarding the children's best interests to be incomplete and contradictory, making a change in the status quo inappropriate before a full trial.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.