Gonen Snir

The Applicant brought a motion to quantify child support arrears and for other relief, framed as a "Motion to Change," amidst multiple parallel proceedings including an unresolved divorce.

The court declined to make isolated findings due to overlapping contested issues across the various files.

The motion was adjourned, and the parties were directed to schedule a case conference with Justice Engelking to consolidate and resolve all outstanding issues, including the status of the divorce, the validity of the separation agreement, and various support and parenting claims.

No further motions were to be launched until the conference.

The respondent father sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of the parties' child, whom the applicant mother had unilaterally relocated.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, though not in bad faith, warranting an elevated costs award.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' conduct, the non-complexity of the motion, and the father's counsel's reasonable billings, the court awarded the father $4,500 in fixed costs, payable in three instalments over one year.

The respondent father brought a motion for the return of the parties' nine-year-old child to Ottawa after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated to Tillsonburg.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the permanent relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child starting school, the father's full-time employment, and the mother's unilateral move.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, noting the mother's failure to provide proper notice and her thwarting of the father's parenting time.

The court ordered the child's return to Ottawa and implemented a temporary week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule.

The moving party previously brought a motion to change child support, which resulted in an order varying his child support obligations.

The court subsequently noted an error in the reasons for decision regarding the commencement date of the varied support.

The court issued amended reasons to correct the commencement date from June 1, 2011, to May 1, 2021, which affected the calculation of arrears.

The parties were permitted to submit new costs submissions based on the corrected outcome.

This is a costs endorsement following an urgent motion where the mother successfully sought to reinstate parenting time with her child.

The mother requested substantial indemnity costs, which the father opposed, arguing his conduct was reasonable and the billings excessive.

The court found the mother was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

The father's conduct, including inappropriately sending an offer to settle directly to the mother and withholding the child's visitation, was deemed unreasonable and warranted an elevated costs award.

The court also noted the father's attempt to relitigate the issue of urgency.

An elevated costs award of $3500 was deemed fair and reasonable.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order, seeking to vary ongoing child support and retroactively reduce or eliminate child support arrears and section 7 expense contributions.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci, finding that while the father's mental health constituted a material change in circumstances, he failed to provide effective notice of his income changes.

The court declined to retroactively reduce arrears prior to the formal notice date (May 2021) due to the father's delay, conduct, and the children's ongoing need for support.

Ongoing child support was varied from the formal notice date based on the father's current income, but the significant arrears accumulated prior to May 2021 were not reduced or rescinded.

The moving party mother brought an urgent motion for parenting time with her 18-month-old child, whom she had not seen for almost two months.

The responding party father supported parenting time but sought a gradual transition without proposing a specific schedule, while the mother sought an immediate move to shared parenting.

The court applied the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered a gradual transition to a shared, equal parenting schedule.

This is a costs endorsement following a 9-day family law trial.

Both parties sought costs, with the applicant (wife) seeking partial indemnity and the respondent (husband) seeking full indemnity.

The court found that there was divided success on the issues and that both parties contributed to the costs and delays of the trial, including issues with financial disclosure and engagement with Requests to Admit.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

Following a nine-day trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the husband's foreign properties in Morocco, and ordered the equalization payment to be made via a pension rollover.

The court also ordered the husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, proportionate shares of section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support on a compensatory and needs basis.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for additional interim parenting time on a graduated schedule leading to equal time.

The applicant mother opposed, proposing a slower schedule.

The court considered the child's best interests under s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act, noting concerns about both parents' mental health, the father's history of absences due to military deployments, and allegations of family violence and coercive control against the father.

The court ordered a graduated schedule of unsupervised in-person parenting time for the father, but declined to order overnight parenting time at this stage.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary, without prejudice order for equal parenting time over the summer.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for primary residence.

The parties had separated following a conflict that resulted in criminal charges against the father, which were later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond.

Both parties made allegations of substance abuse against each other.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that the maximum contact principle supported equal parenting time on a temporary basis.

The applicant's motion was granted and the respondent's motion was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a default order that permitted the applicant father to proceed to an uncontested trial on parenting and property issues.

The mother had failed to file an Answer after relocating to British Columbia following a mental health crisis.

Applying the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, the court found that while the motion was not brought promptly, the mother had a plausible excuse due to her mental health and lack of counsel.

Emphasizing that parenting decisions should be made on a full evidentiary record, the court set aside the default order on terms, allowing the mother to file an Answer while granting the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility and costs thrown away.

The moving party father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with the children over the Christmas holidays and for an order that the responding party mother share equally in the travel costs.

The parties had previously agreed to the Christmas access, but disagreed on the apportionment of flight costs from Ottawa to Winnipeg.

The court reviewed the existing Final Order, which stipulated that the parties share transportation costs equally if the mother opted not to meet halfway.

The court ordered the parties to share the $4,054.62 flight costs equally and set out the logistical terms for the children's travel.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order to require the applicant father's parenting time to be supervised and to impute income for child support.

The mother alleged the father breached the existing order by exercising unsupervised parenting time and raised concerns about his substance abuse and behavior.

The court found the father's failure to abide by the agreed supervision terms constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered supervised parenting time and imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the father due to his failure to produce ordered income tax returns, resulting in a temporary child support order.

The applicant grandmother brought a motion for temporary contact with her 7-year-old grandchild after the respondent parents suspended contact in February 2020.

The parents, who share joint residency, opposed the motion, citing concerns about inappropriate behaviour and parental autonomy.

The court dismissed the temporary motion, finding insufficient evidence to conclude the parents acted arbitrarily under the Chapman test.

However, the court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for a s. 112 assessment to assist in determining the child's best interests.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

Following the withdrawal of a status review application by the child protection society, the respondent foster parents, maternal grandmother, and First Nation band sought costs against the society.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs against a child protection agency, noting that costs are only appropriate if the society acted in a patently unfair or indefensible manner.

The court found that the society's actions in bringing the application to address access issues and a breakdown in the foster placement were reasonable based on the information available at the time.

The requests for costs were dismissed.

The parties separated following a violent altercation resulting in criminal charges against the applicant father.

On this motion, both parties sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their 21-month-old child.

The court granted the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and extended a no-contact order due to the history of family violence.

The court removed the supervision requirement for the father's parenting time and gradually increased his daytime visits, but denied overnight visits pending evidence of stability.

The father was also ordered to pay child support based on his reported income, subject to further financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the four children and an order for two children to return to their previous school after the respondent mother unilaterally moved out with the children and changed their school.

The mother alleged physical and emotional abuse and sought sole custody with supervised access.

The court found the father's alleged "confession" from the mother to be coerced, indicating controlling behavior.

While acknowledging the mother's unilateral action in changing schools, the court prioritized the children's best interests, particularly regarding school stability.

The court granted the father alternate weekend parenting time with all four children and one evening per week with two children, but denied supervised access and ordered the children to remain in their new school for the current term, with the issue to be revisited.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support for two children in the table amount of $467 per month, based on an imputed income of $30,540 per annum, commencing January 1, 2021.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $113 for past section 7 expenses and contribute proportionally to future expenses with prior written consent, with medical expenses prescribed by a child's primary physician deemed section 7 expenses.

The court denied reimbursement for some chiropractic services due to lack of supporting evidence.

Partial costs of $750 were awarded to the applicant, as the respondent should have agreed to commence child support payments without the necessity of a motion.