J.P.L. McDermot

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.

The applicant child protection agency apprehended two young children.

The maternal grandmother, K.D.-M., sought to be added as a respondent and for the children to be placed in her care.

The agency and the children's mother opposed this, advocating for agency care with a plan to return the children to the mother, or placement with the father.

The court found that the agency improperly failed to name the maternal grandmother as a party, as she qualified as a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act due to a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The court also determined that placing the children with the maternal grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was appropriate, as the risk of harm could be mitigated.

The maternal grandmother's motion was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to her care.

The respondent mother brought a motion for the immediate return of her child, Brianne, to a long-standing week-about time-sharing arrangement, as per a final consent order.

The applicant father resisted, alleging abuse by the mother and citing Brianne's stated wishes to remain with him, including threats of self-harm or running away.

The court found no material change in circumstances since the final order and no sufficiently compelling circumstances to warrant an interim change.

The judge expressed concerns about the father's credibility regarding the alleged abuse and his failure to enforce the existing court order, emphasizing a custodial parent's positive obligation to ensure a child complies with access orders.

The mother's motion was allowed, and the father's counter-motion for a change in access was dismissed, with a transition schedule established for Brianne's return to shared care.

The Applicant sought an order for the return of her 8-year-old child, Keegan, to a week-about time-sharing arrangement and for police enforcement of a prior order.

The Respondent had withheld the child, citing COVID-19 precautions and alleged inadequate supervision by the Applicant, including an incident of sexual contact between Keegan and a cousin and viewing of pornographic images.

The court found no compelling circumstances to change the status quo, noting the Children's Aid Society deemed the child safe in either parent's home with a safety plan.

The Applicant's request for a monetary penalty for missed visits was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies in bringing a contempt motion.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Applicant, make-up time, and police enforcement, and granted costs to the Applicant.

The Applicant sought costs following a successful motion to restore shared time-sharing for their child, which the Respondent had unilaterally altered due to COVID-19.

The court found the Respondent's actions unreasonable but not in bad faith.

While the Applicant's offer to settle aligned with the main outcome, it did not fully meet the criteria for full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) due to an unaddressed issue.

Considering the Respondent's financial circumstances and the impact on the child, the court awarded partial recovery costs to the Applicant.

The Applicant sought costs following the Respondent's successful motion to set aside an ex parte temporary order.

The court found the Applicant guilty of bad faith conduct due to material misrepresentations made to the court and unreasonable behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and non-disclosure.

Despite the Respondent's offer to settle not strictly complying with Rule 18(14), it was considered a bona fide attempt at compromise under Rule 18(16).

The Applicant's financial hardship was not considered a mitigating factor given the finding of bad faith and similar modest means of both parties.

The court awarded the Respondent full recovery costs of $8,300, payable forthwith.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the respondent to reduce spousal support.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, citing success and the applicant's alleged unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant resisted, claiming good faith negotiation attempts were hindered by the respondent.

The court found the respondent was the successful party on the underlying motion, entitling him to costs under Family Law Rule 24(1).

However, the respondent's offers to settle, which included significant and non-severable costs demands, were deemed to have impeded settlement.

Consequently, the court reduced the quantum of costs awarded to the respondent from an estimated partial recovery of $6,000 to $4,000.

The Applicant brought an urgent 14B motion for child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the issues insufficiently urgent to be heard during the COVID-19 court closure, which required "dire" financial circumstances.

The court noted that the parties had previously agreed to delay the sale of the home and that the Applicant had not complied with disclosure requirements.

The Applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning the care of the parties' 10-year-old child, Logan, after the Respondent mother unilaterally changed the shared parenting arrangement following the father's self-quarantine due to COVID-19.

The father sought a return to the pre-existing shared custody status quo, while the mother sought a return to an earlier arrangement where the father had less time.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high onus required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion, as her COVID-19 concerns had evaporated and her other complaints were long-standing.

The court ordered a return to the shared parenting schedule that was in place prior to the father's self-quarantine.

The father's request to provide childcare during the mother's working hours was dismissed, as was the mother's request to revert to an older access schedule.

The court also ordered Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement to determine the child's views and preferences.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for temporary care of the infant child, G., to be placed with kin caregivers, and for access to the mother, C.B., to be at the Society's discretion.

The mother opposed, seeking return of the child or supervised access by her adult daughter.

The court granted temporary care to the kin caregivers, finding a risk of harm due to the mother's unaddressed mental health issues and non-cooperation with the Society.

The court also determined that supervised access by the Society was not feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the mother's proposed supervisor was inappropriate.

Access for the infant was therefore suspended, with virtual access for older siblings and a review clause for future face-to-face visits.

The Applicant Father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order and custody of the children, alleging abuse by the Respondent Mother.

The Respondent Mother brought a cross-motion to set aside the ex parte orders and for care of the children.

The court found the Applicant's affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding primary caregiving, abuse allegations, and the children's habitual residence.

The court set aside the ex parte orders, granted temporary primary residence to the Respondent Mother in Scarborough, and dismissed the Applicant's request for a restraining order, finding no credible evidence of abuse or reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the Applicant Father's unsupervised access to their nine-year-old daughter, Ava-Mai, alleging physical abuse.

This was the second such motion brought without notice, with the first having been dismissed.

The court found the Respondent failed to disclose crucial information and made inconsistent orders.

The court dismissed the motion to suspend access, finding insufficient evidence of risk and emphasizing the importance of a meaningful relationship with both parents, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also confirmed the Applicant's unsupervised access and requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer's involvement.

The respondent (payor) brought a motion for a temporary reduction in spousal support due to a material change in circumstances, specifically a significant reduction in income from $102,000 to $86,000 per year following the elimination of overtime and on-call duties at Ontario Hydro.

The applicant (recipient) opposed, arguing the change was not material or was foreseeable.

The court applied a four-part test for interim variations (prima facie case, hardship, urgency, clean hands) and found that the respondent had established a strong prima facie case for a material change, demonstrated hardship, acted with urgency, and had clean hands.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was temporarily reduced from $2,275 to $1,775 per month, retroactive to November 1, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties, who cohabited for a significant period, had a complex financial arrangement involving a jointly-owned company and the applicant's employment income, which was historically split.

The respondent sought to continue the equalization of income, arguing it stemmed from a joint venture.

The applicant acknowledged entitlement to non-compensatory spousal support but argued for imputation of income to the respondent and adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The court declined to impute income to the respondent at the interim stage due to conflicting evidence and the need for a trial.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for an equal division of income as a property claim not suitable for an interim spousal support motion.

Applying the SSAGs, and considering the respondent's disproportionate benefit from dividend income covering his rent, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent temporary spousal support of $2,000 per month.

This decision addresses costs following a confirmation hearing for a motion to change spousal and child support.

The applicant's motion was largely dismissed due to deficient and inconsistent evidence, leading to the respondent being deemed the successful party.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding disclosure and lack of a settlement offer, but not amounting to bad faith.

The respondent's "proposal to resolve" was not considered a formal offer to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Considering the respondent's meticulous preparation and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, the court awarded the respondent $7,000 in costs, enforceable as support.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant's claim for security for spousal support was dismissed.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the applicant, and relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant guilty of bad faith for intentionally sabotaging the respondent's personal injury claim and misrepresenting employment facts to the court.

Applying r. 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered full recovery costs.

Despite the respondent claiming over $22,000, the court fixed the costs at $15,000, emphasizing that even full recovery costs must be reasonable and proportionate, and requiring a detailed breakdown of hours spent.

The father issued a Notice of Garnishment to collect a $6,500 costs award previously ordered against the mother.

The mother's employer began garnishing 20% of her net pay, amounting to approximately $420 per month.

The mother sought to reduce the garnishment to $250 per month, citing financial hardship and the needs of the three children in her care.

The court found that the current garnishment amount caused hardship to the mother and the children, and exercised its discretion under Rule 29(19) of the Family Law Rules to reduce the maximum garnishment to $250 per month.

The applicant sought confirmation of an Alberta provisional order to reduce child and spousal support.

The Ontario court found a material change in circumstances for 2010-2013 due to the applicant's alcohol abuse and homelessness, varying support to zero for those years and reducing it for 2013.

However, for subsequent years, the court found the applicant's evidence regarding his income, lifestyle, and relationship with his new partner to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility, refusing to confirm the provisional order's ongoing reductions.

The original Ontario order for ongoing support was largely reinstated from 2014 onwards, with child support adjusted for one child.

This decision addresses the quantification of costs following a successful trial for lump-sum spousal support.

The Applicant was entirely successful at trial, securing an order for the Respondent's share of matrimonial home proceeds as spousal support.

The court awarded the Applicant costs for the trial and a settlement conference, applying full recovery costs from the date of a favourable offer to settle and partial recovery costs prior to that.

Costs for one motion were denied due to insufficient documentation, and for another, they were denied because the Applicant improperly brought a long motion on a regular motions day.

The total costs awarded to the Applicant were $43,074, collectible as support.

The applicant sought an order for security for his spousal support claim, requesting $175,000 from the net proceeds of a rental property sold by the respondent to be held in trust.

The applicant, who had previously declared bankruptcy, claimed inability to work due to illness and alleged the respondent was voluntarily underemployed.

The respondent opposed, asserting the applicant was working and had sabotaged her personal injury claim, and that his spousal support claim lacked merit.

The court addressed evidentiary issues concerning the admissibility and authentication of emails, and the applicant's alleged perjury.

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding his inability to work and income lacked credibility.

It held that an order for security for spousal support requires at least a strong prima facie case for support and evidence of financial irresponsibility or wrongdoing by the responding party.

Finding no meritorious claim for spousal support and insufficient grounds for security, the court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered the release of the interim trust funds to the respondent.