Joe Sinicrope

The applicant sought a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring a pension valuation, an up-to-date financial statement, and supporting documentation.

The court found the respondent in contempt for willfully failing to file an up-to-date financial statement in the correct Form 13.1, despite being explicitly instructed by a prior judge.

However, allegations regarding the pension valuation and supporting documentation were dismissed, as the former was not proven to be a willful breach and the latter was deemed too vague in the original order to establish deliberate non-compliance.

The court imposed an order for the respondent to file the correct financial statement and supporting documents within 14 days, with a conditional fine and imprisonment for non-compliance, and fixed costs payable to the applicant.

A father sought an order to enroll his child in École Publique Héritage, a French First Language school, while the mother sought enrollment at Sunset Park Public School in an Early French Immersion Programme.

The parents had joint custody with a 50/50 parenting arrangement.

The court applied the best interests of the child standard under the Child's Law Reform Act and determined that enrollment at Sunset Park was in the child's best interests, considering factors including the mother's ability to participate in the child's education, the child's sibling relationship, and the continuity of after-school care.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce spousal support following his retirement and significant reduction in employment income.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the husband’s pension income, the earlier equalization of pension benefits, and the recipient spouse’s medical inability to work.

Relying on the principles articulated in Boston v. Boston, the court held that while the payor was entitled to some reduction in support after retirement, the recipient’s ongoing financial needs and lack of income remained significant.

Balancing these considerations, the court reduced the spousal support payable from $2400 per month to $1350 per month commencing January 1, 2014.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion heard on access to children in a family law matter.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent mother opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and that she and the children would suffer hardship.

The court awarded the full costs claimed to the successful applicant father, finding that the mother had taken unreasonable positions throughout the proceedings and had been the author of her own misfortune by failing to resolve matters in the best interests of the children.

The applicant father brought a motion for specific terms of access to his two children following a separation agreement that provided for joint custody with primary residence with the respondent mother in North Bay.

The respondent mother sought to restrict access, citing various personal difficulties.

The court found that the respondent had not provided adequate justification for restricting the established access arrangements and that she had functioned as a problem-maker rather than a problem-solver.

The court maintained the status quo access schedule and ordered that the matter proceed to trial on the issues of access arrangements and child support.

The court also imposed restrictions on parental conduct, including prohibitions on negative speech about the other parent and on unilateral mental health consultations with the children.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application alleging that two children were at risk due to a pattern of neglect and physical assault by their father.

The father subsequently brought a motion for unsupervised access to the children.

The court found that while the children have a fundamental right to maintain contact with their non-custodial parent, the allegations raised sufficient safety concerns to warrant supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home, supervised by the paternal grandmother, with specific frequency and conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption within 24 hours of visits.

This is a costs decision following a final order on custody and access issues in a family law matter.

The respondent sought costs of $5,000 plus disbursements and HST totalling $6,001.74 based on obtaining a final order substantially in accord with a section 112 assessment.

The applicant argued costs should be limited to the preparation and argument of the summary judgment motion only, in the $500 range.

The court awarded partial recovery costs of $2,400 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing January 1, 2013, enforceable as an incident of support.