Joan M. Irwin

The respondent sought an order for the release of transcripts from ten past settlement and case conferences (2012-2020) and a waiver of associated fees, citing hearing difficulties and the need for appeals.

The applicant opposed, arguing the transcripts were irrelevant to the current appeals and that conference discussions are confidential.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no legitimate need for the transcripts that outweighed the confidentiality of settlement discussions, and affirmed it lacked jurisdiction to waive fees.

The father brought a motion to enforce a 2013 parenting order, alleging the mother's non-compliance.

The mother argued the children, aged 13 and 15, refused contact due to the father's emotionally abusive and combative conduct, which included involving police, interfering with their activities, and making false allegations.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother's inability to force contact reasonable given the father's egregious behaviour.

The court also imposed restrictions on the father's future motions to prevent further harassment and misuse of the court system.

The Respondent (father) brought a 14B Motion seeking to lift the stay of his Motion to Change child support, following a previous dismissal with leave to re-apply.

The court found that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure (including unfiled income tax returns and corporate financial statements), and had not complied with previous court orders regarding over $49,000 in outstanding costs.

The father's affidavit was deemed irrelevant and unfocused, failing to address the deficiencies highlighted in the prior endorsement.

The court dismissed the father's motion to lift the stay and, consequently, dismissed his underlying Motion to Change child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to lift a stay on his Motion to Change child support, which had been imposed due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he had not made meaningful efforts to comply with previous orders, failed to provide basic financial disclosure (including unfiled tax returns and corporate statements), and had accumulated significant child support arrears and unpaid costs.

The court also found his claim of a material change in circumstances to be weak and drew adverse inferences from his delayed bankruptcy discharge and continued lifestyle despite claimed impecuniosity.

The applicant mother sought the urgent return of her children to Florida under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal and retention by the respondent father in Ontario.

Despite the children having been voluntarily returned to Florida by the father due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the court deemed the matter urgent to formally establish habitual residence and wrongful retention, thereby enabling the Florida court to proceed with custody matters.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Florida and that the father had wrongfully removed and retained them, issuing a final order for their return and the delivery of their Canadian passports to the mother.

The father appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The motions judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appeal court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no errors in law or palpable and overriding errors in fact, particularly regarding the father's progressive hearing loss and other alleged changes.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to make written submissions on costs if they could not agree.

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of a summary judgment motion brought by the mother (applicant) dismissing the father's (respondent) Motion to Change a custody and access order.

The father had sought joint custody, increased access, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the Motion to Change.

The mother sought costs of $26,000 for the summary judgment motion, $1,000 for responding to a 14B motion, and $7,500 for time wasted on three previous court appearances.

The father opposed the costs award and sought to reserve the issue pending appeal.

The court awarded costs based on the mother's success, the father's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, and the complexity and importance of the issues.

The mother brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the father's motion to change custody and access provisions of a 2013 order.

The father sought joint custody, expanded access including mid-week overnight visits and school pick-ups, and changes to child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access order.

The father's allegations regarding continued conflict, progressive hearing loss, need for American Sign Language instruction, cancelled visits, and other claimed changes were all found to be either not material or not supported by evidence.

The court granted the mother's summary judgment motion and dismissed the father's motion to change custody and access, while adjourning the child support variation claim.

The court also imposed a requirement that the father obtain leave before bringing any further motions to change custody or access.

The applicant sought costs of $10,771.37 following a successful motion for a temporary parenting schedule.

The respondent argued for no costs on the basis of divided success, as the schedule was limited to the period the parties resided in the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's refusal to agree to a parenting schedule unreasonable, necessitating the motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,500 to the applicant.

The mother, who had sole custody of the parties' two children, brought a motion to change a final consent order to permit her to relocate with the children to the Washington DC area to live with her fiancé.

The father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion to adjust child support.

The court applied the established relocation framework and found that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The court determined that the move was in the children's best interests, noting their strong bond with the mother and her fiancé, their expressed preference to move, and the mother's role as the primary parent.

The mother's motion to relocate was granted, and temporary child support was ordered pending a reference to finalize the amounts based on imputed income.

In a family law proceeding concerning custody and access, the respondent mother moved to adjourn a fixed-date trial to allow for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or a parenting assessment, to obtain unsupervised access, and to set aside prior interim orders on the basis that her statutory right to a bilingual proceeding under the Courts of Justice Act had been breached.

The court declined to adjourn the trial, emphasizing the lengthy litigation history, the children’s need for finality, and the substantial court resources already arranged for a bilingual trial.

The court held that while parties have a substantive right to a bilingual proceeding, the evidence did not establish that prior interim orders should be vacated, particularly where the party had been informed of the procedure for requesting a bilingual hearing but failed to pursue it.

The court did, however, confirm that in Family Court proceedings documents may be filed in French notwithstanding the absence of Schedule 2 designation, subject to translation if requested.