Julia Cecilia Bradley

The parties, parents of a toddler, brought cross-motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making.

The respondent father sought week-about residency and alleged the applicant mother had mental health issues and drug use.

The applicant mother sought supervised contact for the father and exclusion of his fiancé, citing unspecified concerns from the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

The court found both parties' affidavits unhelpful and criticized the applicant's attempt to use CAS as leverage.

Based on the parties' historical actions and CAS investigations finding no risk, the court ordered the child to reside primarily with the applicant mother, with a ramp-up schedule for the respondent father's parenting time.

The applicant was granted decision-making authority.

The court emphasized the need for parties to mature and focus on the child's best interests.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in a family law proceeding.

The Applicant sought over $500,000 in costs, arguing she was entirely successful on all issues, particularly custody and access, and that her settlement offers were bested at trial.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the costs were unreasonable and that the Applicant was not entitled to pre-trial costs or full indemnity.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $454,968.78, finding her largely successful and noting the Respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to sever and make a portion of the costs collectible as child support.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 consent order, seeking sole custody and to change the child's school from Shelburne to Orangeville.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for sole custody and supervised access with drug testing.

The central issue was the applicant's proposed move to Milton, Ontario.

The court found that both parties were motivated by acrimony rather than genuine child protection concerns.

The court permitted the move to Milton but maintained the shared residency arrangement and required the applicant to transport the child to school in Orangeville.

The court rejected allegations of drug abuse and violence as tactical responses to the mobility dispute.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the applicant sought sole custody or joint custody with final decision-making authority, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding that the applicant lacked the ability to cooperate with the respondent as a co-parent, had made numerous unfounded complaints to child protective authorities, and had emotionally abused the children through constant criticism of their mother.

The respondent demonstrated superior parenting ability, financial stability, and commitment to the children's education and welfare.

The applicant was granted alternate weekend access with strict conditions regarding punctuality for access exchanges.