Henry Vogelsang

E.N.H., the sister of the mother (T.R.), brought a motion to be added as a party respondent in a child protection status review application.

E.N.H. sought to claim placement of the two children with her or a custody order, intending to involve the mother in their lives.

The Children's Aid Society, the father (G.R.), and counsel for the children opposed the motion, arguing that E.N.H. was a "stalking horse" for the mother and had adopted the mother's unsubstantiated delusions about the father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that E.N.H.'s plan did not merit consideration and that adding her as a party was not in the children's best interests, as her beliefs and minimization of past misconduct were problematic.

The applicant, Mr. B., brought a motion for access to his three children, initially seeking equal parenting time and joint custody, but at the motion, pursued only access.

The court reviewed the tumultuous history of the parties' relationship, marked by mutual aggression, domestic violence, and criminal charges against Mr. B. for assault and mischief.

Concerns were raised about the children's exposure to violence and their vulnerable state, including one child undergoing counselling and two subpoenaed to testify in Mr. B.'s upcoming criminal trial.

Despite Mr. B. completing a "Changing Ways" program and having previously arranged supervised access, the court denied his request for unsupervised weekend access, finding it inconsistent with the children's best interests.

A temporary order for supervised access at the Merrymount Children’s Centre was granted, with parties required to complete intake procedures.

This endorsement resolves a preliminary objection regarding the participation of foster parents, D.T. and S.C., in a motion to add prospective kin placement D.M. and R.A. as party respondents in a child protection application.

The court examined the definition of 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that an interlocutory motion constitutes a 'hearing,' thereby entitling the foster parents to participate.

The parties, who share equal residential parenting time of their four-year-old son, brought competing motions regarding his enrollment in Junior Kindergarten.

The mother sought to enroll the child at a school near her residence, where the child had already established a connection through his half-sister.

The father sought enrollment at a school near his residence, citing financial and transportation difficulties.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and ordered that the child be enrolled in the mother's proposed school, finding that the established routine and connection to the school would provide stability and reduce inconvenience for the child.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final custody order less than two months after it was made on consent.

He sought joint custody and changes to the access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances as required by section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father's relocation and the birth of a child in his new relationship did not constitute a material change, and his uncooperative behaviour was inimical to joint custody.

Following a 23-day family law trial where the applicant was overwhelmingly successful, she sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the offers were structured differently from the final award, making comparison difficult.

However, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial, the court awarded the applicant $115,000 in costs, with 40% designated as support-related for enforcement purposes.

Following a successful undefended summary judgment motion for child support, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent had failed to provide financial disclosure and did not participate in the final stages of the litigation.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and fairness, fixing costs at $13,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, and ordered that they be enforceable by the Director as support-related expenses.

The applicant was successful on a motion for leave to proceed and in dismissing the respondent's cross-motion for security for costs.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $8,800, inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the tortuous history of the litigation and incorporating costs reserved from previous motions.

The applicant achieved success on a motion dismissing a third party's attempt to be added as a party respondent.

The applicant sought costs for the motion.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at $3,750 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the third party within 45 days.

Following a successful urgent motion to compel the sale of commercial real estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful co-owner who opposed the sale.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of proportionality.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $6,000 and to the supporting respondent in the amount of $3,350, payable by the opposing respondent.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process and a vexatious proceeding, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court considered the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and the time-intensive nature of the motion.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days.

The parties separated in 2008 and have two children, one of whom has severe autism requiring constant care.

The mother sought sole custody, retroactive child and spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father, who had been unemployed or underemployed since 2010, sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and the sale of the home.

The court granted the mother sole custody and exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's behavior abusive and controlling.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the father due to his intentional unemployment and ordered retroactive child and spousal support commencing July 1, 2012.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking interim sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' child's school enrollment and an order for primary residence.

The parties previously had a final order for joint custody and equally shared care.

The court found a material change in circumstances under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the mother's relocation, the child reaching school age, the father's work schedule and living arrangements, and the father's abusive communications.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother and attend school in her district, granting the mother's motion.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child at birth due to concerns about the mother's mental health, history of abusive relationships, and lack of support.

The Society and the father sought an order finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in the joint custody of the father and paternal grandparents.

The mother opposed the order and sought the return of the child.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm in the mother's care.

The court concluded that a supervision order would be inadequate and granted joint custody to the father and paternal grandparents, with supervised access for the mother.

The applicant's motion for temporary relief was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs as the successful party.

The court acknowledged the respondent's complete success but emphasized the applicant's limited ability to pay and the financial hardship faced by both parties.

Finding no unreasonable conduct by the applicant, the court fixed costs at $1,250, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at a rate of $25 per month.

Following an interim custody proceeding where the applicant father was successful in obtaining an order for equal shared parenting, he sought costs of $28,421.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parents had litigated in good faith out of genuine love for their children.

The court held that imposing a costs award against the respondent mother would negatively impact her financial ability to maintain the shared parenting arrangement, which would ultimately harm the children.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, temporary child support, and temporary spousal support.

The parties had continued to reside together in the matrimonial home despite separating over five years prior, and both were burdened by significant consumer debt.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding no evidence of violence or that the children's best interests were compromised by the continued cohabitation.

The claims for temporary support were also dismissed as the respondent was already paying a large share of the family's expenses.

In an interim custody dispute, the applicant father sought shared joint custody or sole custody with equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with limited access.

The court found the mother's affidavit evidence less reliable due to audio recordings revealing her verbal and physical abuse.

The court declined to make an interim custody order but established a temporary week-about (equal) residence schedule for the children, emphasizing the Divorce Act's principle of maximum contact with both parents and the children's best interests.

Supplemental orders were issued to facilitate the parenting arrangement and minimize conflict.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year relationship.

The respondent, who previously earned over $78,000, quit his recent employment as a truck driver and applied for Employment Insurance.

The court found the respondent to be intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $65,000.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,885 per month.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final support order, claiming his income was lower than attributed.

Extensive disclosure and discovery revealed that the respondent had improperly deducted personal expenses as business costs, and his actual income was not significantly lower than initially attributed.

The parties eventually settled, with the respondent's support arrears remaining largely unchanged and child support reassessed to his disadvantage.

The applicant was deemed the successful party and was awarded costs of $13,400, inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.