J.P.L. McDermot

The applicant mother sought a parenting order for the parties' child.

The respondent father, relying on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) and an order from an unrecognized alternative tribunal, challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The court rejected the respondent's jurisdictional arguments, finding them nonsensical and abusive.

Proceeding with the trial in the respondent's absence, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with parenting time at her discretion, due to the respondent's history of family violence and overholding the child.

The parties settled their family law litigation, and the respondent sought costs of $28,764.15 while the applicant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that both parties had a measure of success in the settlement, meaning there was no clear capitulation by either side.

However, the court awarded $6,500 in partial recovery costs to the respondent because the applicant's unreasonable failure to provide required financial disclosure necessitated the proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding the buyout of the matrimonial home and spousal support, allegedly reached via email exchange of draft minutes following a settlement conference.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for partition and sale of the home.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the parties had a meeting of the minds and intended to be bound prior to signing formal minutes.

The cross-motion for partition and sale was also dismissed, as selling the home would prejudice the applicant's trial claim to purchase the respondent's interest.

The respondent sought an order for costs against the applicant's counsel under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules, alleging that counsel had caused unnecessary costs by advising the applicant to breach a temporary parenting order and withhold parenting time.

The court found that counsel's actions did increase costs and constituted ethical breaches, including advising a client to disobey a court order and attempting to act as both witness and advocate.

However, given counsel's recent call to the bar, contrition, and the absence of dishonest or bad faith intent, the court declined to award costs against him, emphasizing that such orders are to be made sparingly and require an element of mala fides beyond mere incompetence.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the Applicant brought a cross-motion for spousal and child support and for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for the sale of the home, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their special needs and the need for stability, and that the Respondent had no urgent need for the funds.

The Applicant's motion for spousal and child support was dismissed as the court found no evidentiary basis to impute income to the Respondent at the interim stage.

The Applicant's request for OCL involvement was granted to provide unbiased evidence regarding the children's best interests.

The Applicant mother brought a motion to temporarily implement parenting time recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) report, or alternatively, to convert the existing 2-2-3 parenting schedule to a week-about shared arrangement.

The Respondent father opposed, alleging abuse and attempting to discredit the OCL report, which found him responsible for the child's refusal to see the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making authority to arrange therapy for the child and varied the parenting time to a week-about schedule to reduce exchanges, declining the OCL's recommended 30-day "detox" period due to the lack of therapy in place.

The matter was adjourned for an urgent Trial Scheduling Conference.

The Applicant was awarded costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including surreptitious recording.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the parties were not spouses under the Family Law Act as they did not cohabit in a conjugal relationship for three years.

The court found a prima facie case that the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship for ten years, despite maintaining separate residences at times.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $1,400 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The applicant father commenced litigation seeking shared parenting and alleging parental alienation after the children refused overnight visits.

Following an assessment that found the children's views were independent and based on the father's behaviour, the matter settled with the father receiving daytime visits only.

The respondent mother sought costs as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party, as the father's claims were unreasonable and he ultimately capitulated.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a deemed custody order in favour of the child's kith caregivers, with access to the respondent mother at the caregivers' discretion.

The mother consented to the finding that the child was in need of protection but sought joint decision-making and fixed, unsupervised access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's lack of credibility, her concerning associations, and the deteriorated relationship between her and the caregivers, which precluded joint decision-making.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding sole decision-making to the caregivers and ordering weekly access at their discretion, requiring 48 hours' notice from the mother.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent father sought costs against the respondent mother for her failure to file required documents for a Trial Scheduling Conference.

The court declined to award costs, noting that under Rule 17(18) of the Family Law Rules, costs at a conference are discouraged unless the failure to file documents contributed to the conference being unproductive.

Since the conference successfully set the matter down for trial, and considering the mother's limited financial means as the primary caregiver for the children, an award of costs was not in the interests of justice.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an extended care order for three children who were apprehended due to the parents' homelessness, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The father was noted in default.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, extensive access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother had not mitigated the risk factors and continued to struggle with drug use and housing instability.

The court ordered extended care with supervised access for the mother once per month, finding that more frequent access was not in the children's best interests given her history of missed visits.

The Applicant sought to vary a consent order to restrict the Respondent's access to their child to supervised access only, citing the Respondent's alleged breaches of COVID-19 protocols and her own immunocompromised status.

The Respondent brought a counter-motion for police assistance, makeup access, and a restraining order.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion to restrict access, finding insufficient evidence of protocol breaches and criticizing her unilateral self-help.

The court also dismissed the Respondent's counter-motions for makeup access, police assistance, and a restraining order, but varied the order to require the Respondent to provide weekly COVID-19 test results.

The applicant father sought a contact order for his two children, aged 12 and 6, after a period of limited contact since separation.

The respondent mother raised concerns about family violence and COVID-19 risks, proposing supervised outdoor visits.

The court, considering the children's best interests and verified domestic violence risks, granted the father supervised indoor contact three out of four weekends, with supervision by the father's mother or sister, not the respondent.

The court also required the father to adhere to strict COVID-19 protocols, including weekly testing and maintaining a limited social bubble, and rejected the respondent's arguments for outdoor-only visits or her own supervision, citing the need for a more natural environment for the children and the inadequacy of the medical report regarding COVID vulnerability.

The Respondent father sought a contact order for his two sons after a temporary no-contact order was issued due to serious sexual assault allegations made by the Applicant mother's 15-year-old daughter against him, which were verified by Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services.

The court dismissed the father's motion for contact, emphasizing that the best interests of all three children, including the alleged victim, were paramount.

The court highlighted the importance of a risk assessment, which the father refused to undergo, and distinguished prior case law based on recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act concerning family violence.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the Applicant Wife's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The motion was dismissed because a prior consent order permitted the Respondent Husband to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, citing the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct and an offer to settle.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring page limits, attempting to argue issues beyond time limits, misrepresenting hardship, and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

However, full recovery costs were denied because the Respondent's offer to settle was a final offer on equalization and not specific to the motion in question.

The Respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be deducted from the Applicant's share of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking overnight access for his stepchild, Onyx, and a reduction in child support.

The Applicant opposed overnight access for Onyx, citing parental autonomy and alleged neglect/deprecation, but consented to overnight access for their natural child, Bronx.

The court found the Respondent demonstrated a "settled intention" to treat Onyx as his own, making the parental autonomy doctrine inapplicable.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claims of neglect and deprecation as inconsistent or unproven, and found her decision to withhold overnight access for Onyx arbitrary.

The court granted the Respondent parallel access for Onyx as for Bronx, and varied child support downwards based on the Respondent's updated income.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant alleged the respondent materially misrepresented his assets prior to signing the Minutes.

The court found that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the respondent's assets could not be resolved on a short motion.

Furthermore, the respondent had complied with the Minutes by obtaining a mortgage commitment to buy out the applicant's interest.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant Society brought a motion for temporary care of a newborn child who was apprehended at birth due to concerns regarding the respondent mother's unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she could safely parent the child without medication and seeking a graduated return.

The court found that the mother's deteriorating mental health, refusal to follow medical advice, and recent aggressive behaviour posed a risk of harm to the child that could not be adequately addressed by a supervision order.

The court granted the Society's motion for temporary care, with the child to be placed with the paternal grandparents.

Following a successful motion for primary residence of the parties' children, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $13,882.05 based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the offer to settle was not severable and therefore did not attract full recovery costs under Rule 18.

While the respondent exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, it did not amount to bad faith.

Considering the respondent's impecuniosity and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant partial recovery costs fixed at $5,000, payable in monthly installments.

The maternal grandmother sought costs against the child protection agency after successfully moving to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The agency had refused to name her as a party despite her having legal custody of the children under a Voluntary Service Agreement at the time of apprehension.

The court found the agency's conduct to be patently unfair and unreasonable, warranting a costs award against a government agency.

The court awarded the grandmother $3,000 in costs, reducing her claim of $7,474.95 due to excessive time spent and her own poor behaviour prior to the apprehension.