Barry Tobin

The matter returned to update the court on the parties' readiness for trial regarding a jurisdictional dispute over child custody between Ontario and Kuwait.

The applicant requested more time to prepare, but the court directed the trial to commence in November 2023 as a hybrid proceeding.

The court also permitted the filing of a lengthy affidavit on behalf of the Children's Lawyer and scheduled a further update.

The Children's Aid Society sought an extended society care order for three First Nations children who had been in foster care for over three years.

The mother, who had overcome substance abuse and secured housing, sought their return.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's past neglect and failure to protect them.

Applying the augmented best interests test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court concluded that removing the children from their long-term foster mother, to whom they were securely attached, would cause unacceptable emotional harm.

The children were placed in extended society care with access granted to the mother, siblings, and father.

The respondent father brought a motion to change existing parenting and child support orders, seeking shared decision-making responsibility, equal parenting time, and rescission of child support arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the passage of time and the respondent's new residence.

However, due to ongoing communication difficulties between the parties, the court granted the applicant mother final decision-making responsibility with an obligation to consult the respondent.

The respondent was granted minimum alternate weekend parenting time.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $90,000, ordered ongoing child support of $1,351 per month, and dismissed his request to rescind arrears.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

Both parents had serious histories of violence for which they were found not criminally responsible, but had since received absolute discharges from the Ontario Review Board and were successfully managing their mental health conditions.

The Society and the parents sought an order returning the child to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order, which the Children's Lawyer opposed.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the catastrophic risk if either parent relapsed, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the parents' care with strict supervision terms, as the risk of relapse was low and well-monitored.

Following a trial on a motion to change where the applicant was awarded spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $27,000 in costs, while the self-represented respondent made no submissions.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and acted reasonably, whereas the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs, but declined her request to make the costs payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2011 consent order that provided for time-limited spousal support, arguing that her deteriorating physical and mental health constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the applicant's severe health issues, including PTSD and schizoaffective disorder, prevented her from achieving self-sufficiency and were not contemplated at the time of the original order.

The court varied the order to extend spousal support for an additional 13 years at $2,100 per month, but dismissed the applicant's alternative claim to set aside the original agreement on grounds of unconscionability and duress.

The applicant mother sought costs of $35,343.30 following a 13-day trial regarding a motion to change parenting and child support provisions.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs or pay a maximum of $10,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issue of maintaining joint custody and the parenting schedule.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including divided success, the parties' behaviour, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $20,000 to the mother.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in extended society care.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return or access, while the father consented to the protection finding but opposed the disposition and access orders.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's substance abuse and the father's unresolved anger and mental health issues.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care, granted the mother access at the Society's discretion, and directed a trial on the issue of the father's access.