James Battin

The parties separated in 2016 and had two children.

In 2019, one of the children tragically died after being accidentally run over by the respondent's truck.

The respondent brought a motion to change the existing parenting order, seeking week-about parenting time for the surviving child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to prove a material change in circumstances that would justify altering the status quo.

The court further held that, even if the threshold was met, a week-about schedule was not in the child's best interests due to the child's need for stability, the respondent's lack of respect for the applicant's role as custodial parent, and the respondent's failure to pay child support.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with the respondent having alternate weekend parenting time and one mid-week visit.

The respondent was also ordered to pay child support and arrears.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to enforce an existing access order after the respondent mother arbitrarily withheld the child based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the mother's actions were motivated by spite and undermined the parenting order.

The court granted the father's motion, ordered the enforcement of the existing parenting order, dismissed the mother's emergency motion, and awarded costs to the father.

The court determined costs following two motions regarding custody and access.

Although the applicant succeeded in setting aside a previous temporary order, he did not succeed in his main goal of returning to 50/50 residence, and the respondent was overall successful.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $2,500 plus HST, finding the amount very reasonable compared to her actual legal fees.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary child support, seeking to impute income to the respondent father who had been unemployed for over ten years.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for retroactive child support, alleging the applicant failed to disclose her increasing income and worked undisclosed jobs.

The court imputed income to both parties: to the applicant for 'under the table' restaurant work and a home business, and to the respondent at an ODSP-equivalent level.

Finding the applicant's failure to disclose her income tax returns as ordered constituted blameworthy conduct, the court ordered retroactive child support payable by the applicant from 2015.

The applicant father brought a motion to set aside a temporary order that granted sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother, seeking to reinstate a prior shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a permanent order of sole custody.

Due to high conflict between the parents, the court interviewed the 12-year-old child, who expressed a preference to live with his mother and have discretionary weekend visits with his father.

Finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to communicate, the court dismissed the father's motion and granted sole custody to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father in accordance with the child's wishes.

This case involved a multi-day trial addressing several family law issues following the parties' separation in 2008.

The applicant sought ongoing and retroactive child support, s. 7 expenses, an equalization payment based on the respondent's pension, a trust interest in a property, and pre-trial costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for a trust interest, pre-June 2013 costs, and pension equalization, primarily due to the respondent's parents not being parties to the trust claim, prior cost orders, and the applicant's bankruptcy affecting the equalization claim.

The court awarded retroactive child support from December 2011, calculated based on the respondent's varied income, including RRSP withdrawals and imputed farming income.

Ongoing child support and contributions to s. 7 expenses were also ordered, with an offset calculation applied after one child's custody changed.

Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.

The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.

The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.

The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.

Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.

The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.

The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.

The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.

The applicant sought spousal support, access to the children, and an equalization of net family properties following a ten-year cohabitation.

The court found the applicant intentionally underemployed, failed to disclose significant assets including an inheritance, and made no financial contribution to the family.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, imputed income to the applicant, and ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, resulting in no equalization payment to the applicant.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children.

Almost a year after separation, the respondent wife was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and subsequently sought spousal support.

The applicant husband sought a divorce.

The court found no entitlement to compensatory support as the respondent was not economically disadvantaged by the marriage.

The court also denied non-compensatory support, holding that the respondent's disability arose post-separation, was not contemplated during the marriage, and had no connection to the marriage breakdown.

The interim support order was vacated, arrears were set to zero, and the divorce was granted.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligations under a separation agreement after involuntarily losing his job and securing new employment at minimum wage, reducing his income by half.

The respondent, who was disabled and unable to work, argued for a reduced but continued support amount, suggesting the applicant draw on his equalized assets if necessary.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting the applicant's income fell below the $20,000 floor.

The court held the applicant lacked the ability to pay from his income and declined to order him to liquidate his remaining retirement assets, which would constitute impermissible double dipping.

The application to terminate support was granted.