Jennifer P. Ryan

The applicant, Jennifer Lynn Hodgson, brought an emergency ex parte motion seeking a restraining order and related relief against the respondent, Shane Jason Hodgson, in the context of family law proceedings.

The court granted a temporary no contact order under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, finding that the applicant had established urgency and risk of serious consequences if notice were given.

The court declined to grant a restraining order at this stage, reserving the issue for a later hearing.

The order included specific restrictions on contact and proximity, and set a return date for further review.

The respondent sought orders for vacant possession of her solely-titled property and a restraining order against the applicant, with whom she had a past cohabitation and licensee relationship.

The applicant claimed an equitable interest in the property (unjust enrichment, constructive or resulting trust) and opposed the orders.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to continued occupation, noting his inconsistent evidence and failure to pay agreed-upon monthly contributions.

The court granted vacant possession to the respondent, effective April 14, 2023, with police assistance if necessary, and issued a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act due to the applicant's disturbing and harassing conduct.

Both parents brought motions seeking to have the other found in contempt of parenting orders and to vary the residential schedule and custodial decision-making arrangements for their six-year-old child.

The mother sought temporary sole custody and alternating weekend access for the father.

The father sought to change the residential schedule to a 2/2/5/5 week-about arrangement and alleged the mother breached orders regarding information sharing and access to service providers.

The court dismissed both contempt motions and both requests for temporary variations of the final residential order.

However, the court granted the mother's motion for temporary custody, replacing the December 2, 2019 temporary without prejudice joint custody order with an order granting the mother temporary sole custody and decision-making authority regarding significant matters concerning the child's upbringing.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for enforcement of a parenting agreement after the respondent father retained the child on two separate occasions for extended periods due to pandemic-related self-isolation.

The parties settled all issues except one: how to interpret and apply government health protocols during COVID-19.

The father sought an order requiring both parties to follow government protocols and communicate instances of illness or exposure.

The mother opposed this, arguing the father was using the pandemic in bad faith to manipulate the parenting schedule and that separation from her posed greater risk to the child's mental health than potential COVID-19 exposure.

The court found both parents to be loving and responsible but determined that government protocols must be followed.

The court adopted an approach requiring the parties to follow public health directives from Canada, Ontario, and Toronto, with provisions for medical evidence and make-up parenting time when self-isolation occurs.

The applicant mother sought child and spousal support retroactive to the parties' separation on October 1, 2015.

The respondent father failed to comply with disclosure obligations and made conflicting statements regarding his income.

The court found that the father's income should be imputed at $100,000 annually based on his trucking work history and earning capacity.

The court awarded retroactive child support of $1,920 monthly commencing December 1, 2017, and $1,845 monthly from December 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support of $1,000 monthly commencing December 1, 2016, on compensatory and needs-based grounds.

Arrears were to be paid at $250 monthly commencing July 1, 2018.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order awarding sole custody of a child to the mother with access to the father.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision.

The trial judge had provided thorough reasons explaining why sole custody to the mother was in the best interests of the child.

The court noted that the father did not seek joint custody at trial and that the conflict between the parties and their inability to communicate made joint custody unviable.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decisions regarding child support, including the imputation of minimum wage income, the time-limited spousal support award, and the reasonableness of section 7 expenses.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order regarding child access and therapeutic services for the two children, Sarolt and Kinga.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain existing therapeutic services for Sarolt, adjust cost sharing, and increase the father's access to Kinga.

The court granted the agreed-upon adjustment for Kinga's Wednesday overnight access but dismissed the father's request for alternate weekend access and his proposal to switch Sarolt's therapeutic supervision from Brayden Supervision Services to Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO).

The mother's request to change the cost-sharing proportion for Brayden services was also dismissed, maintaining the 50/50 split.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the need for stability, and the crucial role of Brayden's therapeutic intervention for Sarolt.

The applicant mother brought two motions: one seeking to strike the respondent father's case for failure to comply with a disclosure order, and another seeking security for costs of a custody trial estimated at $50,000 on private retainer or $20,000-$30,000 with Legal Aid.

The father opposed both motions and sought dismissal.

The court found that while the mother established grounds for a security for costs order based on the father's non-Ontario residence and lack of sufficient financial disclosure, a trial was not necessary.

The father's joint custody claim was characterized as a nuisance claim due to his persistent secrecy about his circumstances, lack of legal status in Canada, and failure to provide adequate disclosure despite repeated court orders.

The court made the mother's temporary custody order final and stayed the father's joint custody claim under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.