Joan C. Manafa

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 appellant challenged the validity of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) issued under the Mental Health Act on the grounds that not all participants in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) signed it within 72 hours of the medical examination.

The Consent and Capacity Board found the CTO valid, holding that only the examining physician was required to sign within the 72-hour period.

The Superior Court appeal judge reversed, finding that all participants must sign within 72 hours.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the 72-hour requirement applies only to the examining physician's entry into the CTP, not to other service providers who indicate their agreement to the plan.

Motion to change a final consent order of August 19, 2009 regarding custody and access of a child born in 2005.

Both parents sought sole custody with access to the other parent.

The child had identified as gender fluid non-binary and the mother had identified as agender, non-binary transgender.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh inquiry into the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that the mother had failed to follow professional recommendations for the child's behavioral and medical needs, had engaged in verbal aggression with school personnel, had refused to cooperate with the father on parenting matters, and had blamed the child's behavioral issues on misgendering rather than addressing the underlying conduct problems.

The father was found to be more cooperative with professionals, more willing to follow recommendations, and better able to provide the stability and support the child required.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, the court considered costs submissions after the release of the judgment.

Success on the substantive issues was divided, but the court found the respondent had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and evidence necessary to properly litigate the equalization issues.

The court accepted that the respondent was self‑represented and receiving Ontario Works, but determined that some costs should nonetheless be awarded.

The applicant’s claimed legal fees and disbursements were substantially reduced.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in light of the respondent’s disclosure failures and the mixed success on the substantive issues.

Following a short marriage of approximately two and a half years with one child, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court imputed income of $52,000 to the father for several years due to insufficient evidence of job search efforts and ordered ongoing child support based on that imputed income.

Limited transitional spousal support was found appropriate given the respondent’s dependency at separation, but amounts were offset by the applicant’s overpayment of child support and payments toward matrimonial home expenses, resulting in no spousal support owing.

The court rejected claims of disability and imputed minimum wage income to the respondent for later years.

An equalization payment was ordered from the applicant to the respondent despite the short duration of the marriage.

The mother applied for permission to relocate with her two children (ages 14 and 12) from the Greater Toronto Area to Nigeria to live with her new husband, Mr. O., a prominent Nigerian businessman.

The father opposed the relocation and sought custody of the children if the mother moved.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, finding a material change in circumstances and determining that the relocation was in the children's best interests.

The court granted the mother's application for a time-limited relocation until 2016, with structured access provisions for the father including four weeks in summer and two weeks during winter break in Canada, plus access in Nigeria.

The court found the mother to be a credible, child-focused parent with a well-considered plan, while the father demonstrated poor judgment and credibility issues.

In a family law proceeding involving divorce, custody, support, and equalization claims, the parties brought competing motions concerning the preservation and management of significant Ontario real estate assets pending trial.

The respondent sought authority to access trust funds and manage or sell jointly held properties to complete pending real estate transactions, while the applicant sought an order compelling payment of mortgage arrears, taxes, and condominium fees to prevent dissipation of assets.

The court held that the respondent failed to provide admissible and sufficient evidence to justify the extraordinary relief requested, including reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence.

The court reaffirmed and continued an earlier non‑dissipation order and found that the respondent bore responsibility for maintaining the parties’ Ontario properties.

The respondent’s motion was dismissed and the applicant’s motion was granted in part, requiring payment of arrears and ongoing property expenses.

A costs endorsement following a motion for child support and orthodontic expenses.

The applicant sought costs of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle on December 14, 2011, which complied with all conditions under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's offer to settle was significantly less favourable than the final order.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days, taking into account the respondent's ability to pay and the tax deductibility of legal fees for support recipients.

The applicant sought temporary child support for the parties' 15-year-old daughter and the respondent's pro-rata share of orthodontic expenses.

The respondent sought to fix his income at a lower amount based on medical reasons and undue hardship, and requested a reduction in child support to $300 per month.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $71,321 based on his 2010 tax return, rejected the undue hardship claim, and ordered child support at the guideline table amount.

The court also found that orthodontic treatment constituted a special expense and ordered the respondent to pay his pro-rata share after insurance coverage.