Isaac Birenbaum

The Applicant brought a motion seeking sole decision-making, primary parenting, leave to travel with the children without the Respondent's consent, and retroactive child support based on an imputed income.

The court granted the Applicant sole decision-making, primary parenting, and the ability to travel without the Respondent's consent, finding these to be in the children's best interests based on uncontested evidence and an OCL report.

However, the request for child support based on an imputed income of $60,000 was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence, as the mother's sworn belief alone was not a sufficient basis for imputation.

The Respondent was ordered to pay costs to the Applicant.

This endorsement addresses the applicant mother's delayed costs submissions for a prior motion where she was largely successful.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs for the previous motion, particularly for a private investigator's disbursement incurred due to the respondent father's misrepresentation of his employment status.

Despite the mother's significant delay (over six months) in filing costs submissions and failing to raise the issue at subsequent court appearances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs for disbursements to ensure justice, but disallowed legal fees due to the delay.

The father was ordered to pay $5,650 for disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother sought to vary a previous order regarding international travel for the parties' son, Adam, specifically to allow travel to Morocco.

The original order restricted international travel until Adam reached certain ages to reduce parental conflict.

The applicant argued a material change in circumstances due to her mother's medical condition preventing travel to Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances, as the medical evidence was insufficient and the grandmother's inability to travel would not have altered the original decision, which prioritized reducing parental conflict.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking supervised access to his daughter after being denied access for approximately three years.

The respondent had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 2010 and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with minors.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances relevant to access, as his circumstances remained substantially unchanged—he continued to be diagnosed as a likely pedophile, remained subject to the prohibition order, had undergone no treatment, and his only change was a change of mind.

The court rejected the respondent's claim that the applicant had agreed to allow unsupervised access in violation of the court order, finding his credibility questionable.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for judgment seeking sole custody and limited supervised access, arguing the respondent mother had delayed a previously ordered custody and access assessment.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the motion for judgment, reinstate her supervised access, and order the completion of the assessment.

The court dismissed the motion for judgment, finding that completing the assessment was in the child's best interests given the mother's treatable mental health issues.

The court ordered the assessment to be completed, reinstated supervised access, and ordered the applicant to pay the assessment fees in lieu of costs.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving a motion to vary a historic support and equalization order and related enforcement issues, the court determined the appropriate costs disposition.

Although the applicant was largely successful in resisting the variation motion, the court found both principal litigants behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings, including failing to make proper settlement offers, prolonging litigation, and failing to provide adequate financial disclosure.

As a result, neither party received costs against the other.

A co‑respondent who successfully obtained an order removing historic court orders from title to her residence was awarded partial indemnity costs despite failing to meet the technical requirements for full recovery under the Family Law Rules settlement offer provisions.

The court exercised discretion under Rule 24 to award $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and an order for crown wardship without access.

The child had been apprehended from the mother's care due to parental conflict, inadequate parenting ability, and the mother's inability to cope.

The parents had received extensive services and supports, including a therapeutic access program, but demonstrated insufficient progress.

The mother opposed the crown wardship order and sought return of the child to her care with supervision.

The court found no triable issue that the child was in need of protection and that crown wardship was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the mother's argument that improvements in supervised access visits demonstrated capacity for full-time parenting, noting that the child had been in care for nearly 22 months, well beyond statutory time limits, and required permanency planning.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a child protection application.

The applicant sought findings that two children (R.A.N.B., age 3, and E.J.B., age 17 months) were in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a) and (b) of the Child and Family Services Act, and a disposition order making them crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion.

The court found both children in need of protection based on evidence of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, instability, and neglect.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered crown wardship without access, finding no triable issue existed and that this disposition was in the children's best interests.

The applicant sought an order for unsupervised access to his child for six hours weekly.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the child would be at risk of harm without supervision.

The court found that evidence suggested the applicant had a sexual interest in children and posed a risk of psychotic breakdown.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence as lacking independence and objectivity.

Supervised access was continued at two hours weekly.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes and ordered monthly support payments.