Jared Persaud

The applicant father brought a motion seeking primary residence and supervised parenting time for the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support and leave to file her responding pleadings.

The court dismissed the father's parenting motion, finding no credible evidence that the children were at risk in the mother's primary care and noting the prematurity of the request given an ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The court granted the mother's motion for support, determining the father's income for support purposes and ordering child and spousal support payments.

Leave was also granted for the mother to file her pleadings without tax returns.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2014 child support order, requesting a reduction in monthly payments and termination of support for the eldest child.

The applicant mother did not attend the hearing.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's reduced income and the eldest child no longer residing with the mother.

Child support for the eldest child was terminated as of March 31, 2020.

The father's income was imputed at $35,000 annually from March 1, 2022, leading to a reduced monthly support payment for the remaining child.

The court also ordered the father to pay the adjusted arrears in full within 15 days, rejecting his proposal for monthly payments, citing his blameworthy conduct and recent personal injury settlement.

This focused trial determined the valuation date for the equalization of net family properties in a family law proceeding.

The applicant husband sought a valuation date of December 15, 2015, while the respondent wife sought February 14, 2012.

The court, after assessing the parties' credibility and objective evidence regarding their cohabitation and intent to separate, rejected both proposed dates.

The court found that the wife continued to hold a reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation until some point after December 15, 2015, and that the husband's August 18, 2013 letter from prison indicated his clear intent to end the marital relationship.

The court fixed the valuation date as August 18, 2013, which has implications for the husband's equalization claim potentially being statute-barred.

The respondent father sought costs following the dismissal of three unsuccessful urgent motions brought by the applicant mother.

The mother sought leave to bring three 14B motions on May 20, June 4, and August 10, 2020, all of which were dismissed.

The father claimed total costs of $23,995.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the award, considering the mother's difficult personal circumstances (high-risk pregnancy with triplets), the COVID-19 pandemic context, the bona fide nature of her attempts to arrange parenting time, and the overlap between motion and case conference materials.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST, payable at $1,000 per month commencing January 1, 2021.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking leave to have an urgent motion heard regarding in-person access to the parties' child, which the respondent mother had been refusing since March 20, 2020, citing COVID-19 related facility closures.

The court noted that a new Central East Region protocol eliminated the requirement for leave on urgency grounds if a case conference had already been held, which was the case here.

Consequently, the father's motion for leave was dismissed without prejudice.

Following a five-day trial regarding child mobility, the successful respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,691.05.

The applicant father argued against a costs order due to his impecuniosity and its potential impact on his ability to pay child support and fund access.

The court found the father's litigation position unreasonable and noted the mother beat her offers to settle.

The court generally accepted that full indemnity costs were justified but moderated the quantum to $30,000 payable to Legal Aid Ontario in recognition of the father's current financial circumstances.

The applicant mother sought spousal support, while the respondent father sought a final order for joint custody, increased parenting time, and specific Christmas access.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 per year to the mother for spousal support calculations due to insufficient evidence regarding her educational pursuits, awarding mid-range spousal support of $1,200 per month and child support of $911 per month, subject to a one-year review.

The father's request for equal parenting time and Christmas access was granted, and a final order for joint custody was issued by consent.

Costs were awarded to the respondent father.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the parties' child to Ottawa, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to stay the Ottawa proceedings and continue the matter in the York Region.

The mother had unilaterally moved with the child to Markham shortly before commencing her application.

The court determined that the child's habitual residence was Ottawa, where the child was born and raised before the mother's departure.

The court ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa within 10 days, finding that Ottawa was the proper jurisdiction for the proceedings.