10 total
Summary judgment was granted placing the child in extended society care due to the parents' unresolved issues.
The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for the child, S.C., who had been in temporary care since birth.
The respondent parents opposed, arguing for a trial to present their plans for the child's care, including family assistance in Ontario or a move to British Columbia.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the parents' unresolved mental health issues, chronic housing instability, history of domestic violence, and inconsistent access visits demonstrated their inability to provide a stable and safe home.
The court dismissed the parents' proposed plans as unviable and granted the Society's request for extended care, ordering monthly supervised access for the parents.
Matrimonial trial resolves property division, denies occupation rent, and rejects unequal division of family property.
The parties separated and proceeded to a matrimonial trial to resolve outstanding issues regarding property division, section 7 expenses, and parenting matters.
The court determined the values of disputed assets for the Net Family Property calculations and ordered the respondent to pay his share of the children's hot lunches.
The applicant was granted the right to travel internationally without the respondent's consent, but her request for broad mobility rights was restricted to a 50-kilometre radius from Grimsby.
The court dismissed the respondent's claim for occupation rent and the applicant's claim for an unequal division of the matrimonial home's post-separation increase in value, finding that the high threshold for unconscionability under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act was not met.
Costs of $8,096.69 awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's breach of a parenting order.
The applicant sought costs following her successful motion to confirm a prior parenting order and a subsequent request for directions.
The court found that the respondent's inappropriate conduct, including failing to return the children as ordered and denying the existence of the order, necessitated the proceedings.
The applicant was largely successful on the motions and entirely successful on the request for directions.
The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,296.69 on a partial indemnity basis for the motions and $800 on a substantial indemnity basis for the request for directions, totaling $8,096.69.
The court ordered the mother to return the child to their primary residence pending trial, finding no urgent COVID-19 justification for relocation.
The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking resumption of parenting time, police enforcement of a court order, and a finding that the mother had moved the child's residence in contravention of a court order.
The mother sought authorization to relocate the child from Etobicoke to her parents' home in Newmarket prior to trial.
The court found that while the mother initially took the child to her parents' home for March Break during the COVID-19 pandemic, she failed to return as required by a prior court order.
The court determined that the relocation was not necessitated by the health crisis and ordered the mother to return the child to the Etobicoke residence pending trial.
The relocation issue was reserved for determination at trial.
Applicant awarded $4,500 in partial indemnity costs following divided success on a family law motion.
Following a motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home where the applicant mother was more successful, the court determined the issue of costs.
The applicant sought $12,451.47.
The court found divided success, no bad faith by the respondent father, and no offers to settle.
Considering the parties' financial positions (both on social assistance) and the partial success, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.
Costs denied to the respondent due to divided success and his unreasonable failure to pay prior costs.
The respondent sought costs following motions where the parties had divided success.
The court noted that no offers to settle were exchanged and found that the respondent had behaved unreasonably by failing to comply with previous costs orders while simultaneously offering to purchase the matrimonial home.
Concluding that the respondent did not come to the court with clean hands, the court ordered no costs.
Father's consent to sell matrimonial home dispensed with after he frustrated court-ordered sale process.
The applicant mother brought a motion to dispense with the respondent father's signature for the sale of the matrimonial home and to strike his pleadings for failing to comply with previous court orders.
The court found that the father had deliberately frustrated the court-ordered sale process by refusing to sign the listing agreement, insisting on a higher price, and interfering with the real estate agent.
The court granted the order dispensing with his consent.
However, the court declined to strike his pleadings, finding it to be an exceptional remedy, and instead ordered that he be barred from bringing further motions until he paid $8,000 in outstanding costs.
Motion to change granted; child support arrears fixed and rental income deductions partially disallowed.
The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order.
The issues included whether the adult child was in full-time attendance at an educational institution while taking online courses, the calculation of the respondent's income based on rental property deductions, and the allocation of section 7 expenses.
The court found the child remained entitled to support during the online studies, imputed income to the respondent by disallowing certain rental property deductions, fixed arrears at $10,573.18, and ordered the respondent to pay 74% of the parents' share of section 7 expenses.
Incomes imputed to both parties who ran cash businesses to determine support and equalization.
The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.
Both parties operated cash-based businesses and failed to declare significant income to the CRA.
The court imputed incomes to both parties for the purpose of calculating child and spousal support, rejecting the husband's expert report due to his failure to disclose the cash business.
The court also determined the value of various contested assets and date of marriage deductions for the equalization of net family property, finding the husband's uncorroborated evidence unreliable.
Arbitration claims for accident benefits dismissed after applicant failed to attend the hearing.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.
The applicant applied for arbitration but failed to attend the hearing.
The applicant's representative was permitted to withdraw due to a breakdown in the relationship.
As the applicant did not appear to present evidence, she failed to meet her burden of proof, and her claims were dismissed.
The insurer was awarded $1,000 in expenses.