Julie A. Audet

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a two-year-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care since birth due to the parents' long-standing alcohol addiction, domestic violence, and limited parenting capacity.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to address the protection concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child in extended society care with supervised access for the parents.

Following a motion to change parenting provisions and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $28,747.49, arguing she was successful on both issues and the father behaved unreasonably.

The father sought full recovery costs of $22,318.35, arguing he was the successful party overall and the mother acted unreasonably.

The court found success was divided, with the father more successful on parenting issues and the mother more successful on child support.

Finding that the vast majority of time and resources were spent on the parenting dispute, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $5,000 in costs, to be set-off against outstanding child support.

This trial decision addressed the sole remaining issue of a parenting plan for three daughters following the parents' separation.

The court considered the children's best interests, including their views (obtained through a judicial interview with the eldest child), the parents' differing parenting styles, and the history of care.

The mother was granted primary care and final decision-making authority for medical and educational matters, with joint decision-making for major extracurricular activities and religious upbringing.

The father was granted increased, but not equal, parenting time, including specific regular and holiday schedules.

The court emphasized the need for both parents to improve communication and cooperation.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order based on a newly released parenting assessment.

The assessment concluded there was a significant risk of ongoing harm to the children due to the father's alienating behaviours and exposure to parental conflict.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of severe emotional harm if the current arrangements continued.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother, the father's parenting time be supervised, and the family immediately commence reunification therapy.

The moving party father brought a motion to change 2011 and 2013 final orders to increase his parenting time with the parties' 11-year-old child and to allow the parenting time to take place in Montreal.

The father had historically exercised his parenting time inconsistently and made material misrepresentations to the court regarding his living situation.

The court found no material change in circumstances and held that, given the child's strong preference to maintain the status quo in Ottawa and the father's inconsistent involvement, varying the orders was not in the child's best interests.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Unit of the Ontario Family Responsibility Office brought a motion to set aside a default order for child and spousal support.

The applicant had previously requested to withdraw her application because the respondent agreed to deal with all parenting matters in Nova Scotia, but this information was inadvertently not conveyed to the court.

The court granted the motion and set aside the order.

Following a lengthy family law trial regarding parenting and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought $65,655.63 and the father sought $114,575.22.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Although the mother was more successful at trial and made offers to settle, her egregious conduct—including denying parenting time, breaching court orders, lying under oath, and fabricating evidence—disentitled her to costs.

The father was also denied costs due to his unreasonable conduct, including amending his pleadings late to seek primary care and refusing to engage in settlement discussions.

The applicant father sought the return of his three-year-old child to Dubai after the respondent mother removed the child to Ontario without his consent.

The mother argued that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging a history of family violence and claiming the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and determined that the child's habitual residence was Dubai.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding no risk of serious harm, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Dubai.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2015 parenting order to grant him primary care and sole decision-making responsibility of the parties' nine-year-old child, alleging the respondent mother engaged in parental alienation and unilaterally suspended his parenting time.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo and requested retroactive child support.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, noting the mother fabricated text message evidence and the father failed to exercise consistent parenting time or pay proper child support.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's primary care with sole decision-making responsibility, subject to strict consultation requirements, while granting the father increased, regular parenting time.

The father was also ordered to pay $9,414 in child support arrears.

Supplementary reasons for judgment regarding child support.

The court fixed the respondent father's child support arrears at $8,699.57, including contributions to section 7 expenses.

Ongoing basic child support was ordered at $256 per month based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court declined to order the father to pay life insurance premiums to secure support due to his modest financial means.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the child was in need of protection due to the parents' long-standing alcohol abuse and history of domestic violence.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, criticizing the society for 'document dumping' by filing 460 pages of unfocused affidavit evidence, which made it impossible to determine the best interests of the child without a trial.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

The mother was the successful party in a motion to change regarding parenting and child support.

She sought costs of $32,455.36, relying on an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father sought costs of $25,000, alleging bad faith by the mother, or alternatively that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs but reduced the amount to account for the father's success on a previous motion for summer access.

The mother was awarded costs of $15,000.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions to change a 2016 final order regarding parenting and child support for their nine-year-old son.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to high parental conflict and the child's expressed desire to spend more time with the father.

The court ordered a meaningful consultation process for major decisions with the mother retaining final decision-making authority, and increased the father's holiday and summer parenting time.

The court also imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding him voluntarily underemployed, but declined to order him to contribute to extracurricular activities due to his limited means.

The applicant mother sought to vary a 2017 final order to obtain primary care and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' 9-year-old child, alleging the respondent father was abusive and uncooperative.

The court found that the ongoing high-conflict co-parenting relationship constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the court maintained the week-on, week-off equal time-sharing schedule, finding the child was thriving and well-bonded with both parents.

To minimize conflict, the court allocated specific decision-making responsibilities to each parent and implemented a highly detailed parenting plan.

Child support was also adjusted retroactively.

The support payor brought a motion to set aside the registration in Ontario of a 2003 child support order and a 2007 variation order made in the Czech Republic.

The court found that the payor had proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard for the 2003 order, and confirmed its registration.

However, as the payor did not receive notice of the 2007 variation proceedings, the registration of the 2007 variation order was set aside.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim in-person parenting time with his two-year-old daughter pending a trial on jurisdiction and wrongful removal.

The father sought to exercise parenting time in Turkey, where he was residing, while the respondent mother opposed any travel outside Canada due to fears the father would abduct the child to Dubai.

The court granted the father's request for a four-week parenting time period in Turkey, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with her father.

To mitigate the risk of abduction, the court imposed stringent safeguards, including requiring the father to post $200,000 in security, surrender his passports, and consent to a UAE court order granting the mother sole custody.

Following a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements where the applicant father was entirely successful, he sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent mother's conduct was found to be unreasonable, leading to delays and increased costs.

The court awarded the father $12,000 in costs on a scale approaching substantial indemnity, to be deducted from any equalization payment or set-off against support arrears.

The applicant mother brought an application for retroactive child and spousal support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The respondent father failed to respond, and the matter proceeded by default.

The court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the father based on his employment and rental income.

The court ordered the father to pay $1,211 per month in child support and $640 per month in spousal support, both retroactive to the date of separation.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.