Hugh Mcclaren Evans

This was a status review application brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning two children, E (8) and N (6), who had been in society care since 2021 due to their mother's severe mental health issues.

The Society sought a final custody order granting sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to S.T., the father's partner, with whom the children had been living since the father's departure following domestic violence charges.

The mother sought custody for herself, while the father initially sought custody but later supported S.T.'s custody.

The court granted S.T. sole custody under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, finding it to be in the children's best interests due to the mother's profound and unaddressed mental health challenges and the father's deceitful conduct, family violence, and lack of insight.

The court ordered supervised access for the mother and structured, reduced day access for the father, emphasizing the children's need for stability and protection from conflict.

The moving party father brought a motion for a refraining order to enjoin the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from applying to suspend his passport due to child support arrears.

The moving party claimed he was unemployed and needed to travel to Algeria to visit his ill mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it had no discretion to interfere because the moving party had not entered into a payment plan or satisfied the Director that he was unable to pay the arrears.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if it had discretion, it would have denied the motion because the moving party did not come to court with clean hands, having prioritized discretionary expenses over child support.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change spousal and child support orders.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to deteriorating health and an inability to work as an insurance broker.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant was intentionally underemployed to avoid support obligations, noting that the medical evidence could have been presented at the original trial but was withheld as a trial strategy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, the biological mother of the child J., brought a motion to change a 2016 final order that granted sole custody to the paternal grandmother (L.M.).

The applicant sought to change custody to herself, citing improvements in her mental health, stable housing, stable income, and an improved relationship with the child's father.

The court found that while the applicant had made positive changes in her life, these changes did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to alter the child's custodial arrangements.

The court noted that the child was thriving in the grandmother's care and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the grandmother's care fell below recognized standards.

The motion was dismissed, but the court expanded access from three weekends per month to every other weekend, and granted summer vacation access and holiday access provisions.

The biological mother appealed a final order that permitted the paternal grandmother to relocate with the child to Alberta and terminated the mother's access.

The appeal focused on the termination of access, arguing the trial judge erred in findings regarding the mother's inconsistency in exercising access and her ability to protect the child from an alleged abuser.

The appellate court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law.

The court found no such error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the mother's inconsistent access and her failure to protect the child, nor in the decision to terminate access as the only means to serve the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The father brought a motion to change a final child support order, seeking a reduction based on his return to university for a Ph.D. and a claim of undue hardship due to his obligations to other children.

The mother opposed the reduction and sought an increase in the father's contribution to daycare costs.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed his income at $35,000, the same level as the original order.

The court dismissed the father's undue hardship claim for lack of clear and cogent evidence, and ordered him to pay a proportionate share of the mother's increased daycare costs.

A motion to change a child support order where the respondent sought to reduce his child support obligation from $303 per month based on a claim of changed circumstances (return to full-time Ph.D. studies) and undue hardship.

The respondent also had other child support obligations and claimed financial hardship.

The applicant sought to increase the respondent's contribution to daycare costs and to impute additional rental income.

The court found that while there was a change in circumstances, income should be imputed to the respondent at the same level as the original order ($35,000 annually) based on intentional underemployment.

The court rejected the undue hardship claim as the respondent failed to establish clear and cogent evidence of exceptional hardship.

The court granted the applicant's motion regarding increased daycare contributions.

In a matrimonial dispute, the husband appealed the quantum of an equalization payment ordered by the trial judge, while the wife cross-appealed the quantum of child support.

The wife moved to dismiss the husband's appeal for non-payment of interim child and spousal support ordered by Lauwers J.A. The Court of Appeal found that the husband's failure to comply with the interim support order and his failure to pursue or perfect the appeal on a timely basis disentitled him from continuing with the appeal.

The court dismissed the husband's appeal with costs and correspondingly dismissed the wife's cross-appeal without costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on motions to change child support obligations.

The applicant mother sought costs of $3,786.63 from the respondent father, who argued no costs should be awarded.

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

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to pay child support until just before trial, active avoidance of obligations, deliberate unemployment, and non-reporting of cash income, weighed heavily against him.

The court awarded costs of $2,700 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $75 per month starting January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for non-payment of support or costs.

The applicant mother and the City of Toronto (assignee of child support) brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to increase support based on imputed income of $80,000.

The respondent father sought to rescind arrears accumulated from September 2013 to July 2016, claiming he had no legal work status during that period and therefore could not work.

The court found a change in circumstances based on the unexpected length of time required to obtain a work permit.

The court partially rescinded 15 months of arrears ($2,550) but found the father intentionally unemployed after January 2017 and imputed income at $31,200 until September 2017, then $48,000 thereafter.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $259 monthly until September 2017, then $433 monthly, plus arrears and costs payments.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements, custody, and child support for two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with limited access to the respondent father, while the respondent father sought sole custody with a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that although both parents love the children and are capable of meeting their needs, the mother's attitude toward the father and her attempts to interfere with his relationship with the children were detrimental to the children's best interests.

The court granted sole custody to the father while maintaining a substantially equal shared parenting schedule, finding that the father was more willing to support the children's relationship with the mother and had been actively involved in the children's medical and educational needs since separation.

The court issued a ruling on costs and other issues following a judgment on child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The Applicant was found to be more successful overall.

The court corrected an inadvertent error in the spousal support calculation based on an outdated program, adjusting the monthly payment.

It declined to revisit the date of marriage value of the Respondent's Book of Business as it was not disputed at trial.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Applicant, secured the equalization payment against the matrimonial home, and ordered pre and post-judgment interest.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that two children be found in need of protection pursuant to clauses 37(2)(b) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act and be made Crown wards with access to their mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to her care.

The court found that the children were in need of protection based on uncontested evidence of the mother's inability to provide stable housing, her use of the children to sell chocolates to supplement income, the children's excessive school absences, and the mother's failure to cooperate with the society or maintain consistent contact with the children during their time in care.

The court granted the society's motion and made the children Crown wards, with the issue of access to be determined at a further hearing.

This family law trial addressed financial issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the value of the matrimonial home, the respondent's business interests (ABC Insurance Brokers Ltd. and Dagmar Management Group Ltd.), personal property, and a disputed loan from the respondent's father, which was discounted to zero.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, finding the applicant intentionally under-employed due to insufficient English language upgrading efforts, and imputed rental income to the respondent.

Child support and spousal support were ordered, with spousal support being compensatory and non-compensatory, set at mid-range for a duration of nine years post-separation.

In a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a child be made a Crown ward.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion.

The child, who had been in the society's care for approximately two and a half years and was only three years and eight months old, had minimal contact with the mother (only five visits over 22 months).

The mother had not meaningfully addressed the society's protection concerns regarding alcohol abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and parenting capacity.

The court found that Crown wardship was in the child's best interests and that no access order would be made.

The applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada and signed undertakings to provide for their financial needs.

The sponsored family members received social assistance, resulting in debts owed by the applicants to the Province of Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to enforce the debts, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the Ministry provided boilerplate responses and no proper reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Mavi, which held that the duty of fairness in these debt collection matters is minimal and does not require reasons.

The court found the Ministry considered individual circumstances and complied with the required procedural fairness obligations.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for permitting illegal acts, specifically drug trafficking, in his unit.

The tenant argued the Board's reasons were defective and failed to consider relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were sufficient, supported by ample evidence of drugs and weapons in the unit, and that the Board properly considered and rejected relief from forfeiture due to the risk posed to other residents.

The court addressed the issue of guideline child support in an addendum to a ruling released March 5, 2012.

The applicant father had returned to university, reducing his income from approximately $41,000 annually to minimal earnings as a teaching assistant.

The respondent mother argued the applicant was intentionally under-employed to avoid support obligations.

The court found the applicant was intentionally under-employed within the meaning of section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines but recognized his reasonable prospect of higher future earnings.

The court imputed income at $21,840 per year (based on $10.00 per hour for 42 hours weekly) rather than his previous $41,000 income level, resulting in child support payments of $186.00 per month from September 1, 2011, decreasing to $174.00 per month effective January 1, 2012, with retroactive payments of $371.00 per month for the period April 1, 2011 to August 30, 2011.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a temporary order made August 3, 2011, seeking to terminate his obligation to contribute one-third of daycare costs (approximately $350 per month) for the parties' child.

The applicant, pursuing a PhD in physics and funded through OSAP, argued the obligation was too onerous.

The respondent was attending Teachers College with expectations of graduation and employment.

The court found no significant change in circumstances warranting variation.

Both parties had chosen to pursue higher education simultaneously, creating financial burden that must be fairly shared.

The court dismissed the motion but directed the respondent to maximize tax deductions available for daycare expenses, with the applicant's obligation limited to one-third of the net cost after tax benefits.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.