Justice L.S. Parent

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying him access to their four-year-old daughter in breach of temporary access orders dated October 11, 2018 and April 8, 2019.

The mother denied access based on the child's disclosures of alleged sexual abuse by the father, which triggered investigations by police and child protection services.

The court found the mother in contempt only for the period from October 7, 2020 onward, after investigations closed without substantiation and the father's bail conditions were varied to permit contact for family court purposes.

The court imposed a gradual resumption of access with financial penalties for missed visits rather than the requested change of custody.

The respondent brought a motion for release of the applicant's medical records.

The applicant was successful in opposing the motion.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial recovery basis in the amount of $9,253.27, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith.

The court awarded costs on a partial recovery basis of $2,500.00, finding that while the applicant was the successful party, the respondent's conduct did not constitute bad faith.

The court also found the applicant's claimed hours and administrative costs to be excessive and disproportionate to the limited issue before the court.

Costs were ordered to be paid in two instalments.

This is a costs decision following the court's dismissal of the applicant's application on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs of $4,062.00 on a partial recovery basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court applied the Family Law Rules framework and found the respondent entitled to costs as the successful party.

However, the court reduced the award to $2,800.00 on a partial recovery basis, finding certain entries in the respondent's bill of costs excessive and not reasonably justified given the narrow nature of the motion.

The court considered the applicant's limited financial means as a factor in determining the amount but did not use it as a shield against liability.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and obtain a final order on her claims for custody, child support (retroactive and ongoing), and access.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the respondent's conduct—including failure to attend court appearances and failure to comply with court orders—warranted striking his pleadings.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that while the respondent had engaged in non-compliance, the threshold for this drastic remedy had not been met, particularly given that the interests of a child were at issue and both parties' participation was necessary for a fair determination.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for custody, access, and child support on the grounds that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the child.

The applicant and respondent were married in India and had one child born in 2017.

The respondent resided in British Columbia while the applicant resided in India.

After the applicant and child arrived in British Columbia in July 2018, they left for Ontario on July 18, 2018, where the applicant filed her application on September 20, 2018.

The respondent had filed a competing application in British Columbia on August 31, 2018.

The court found that the child was not habitually resident in Ontario under section 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the respondent had not consented to or acquiesced in the child's removal to Ontario.

While five of the six criteria under section 22(1)(b) were satisfied, the court found that criterion (iii)—requiring no pending application in another jurisdiction where the child is habitually resident—was not met due to the pending British Columbia application.

Accordingly, the motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The respondent father brought two contempt motions against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a 2013 custody and access order.

The court found the mother in contempt for the period between October 2017 to April 18, 2018 and on September 21, October 5 and 19, 2018, but rejected allegations regarding earlier periods.

The court determined that while the mother initially facilitated access, she deliberately interfered with the father's relationship with the children following an October 2017 incident by creating an atmosphere that supported the children's expressed reluctance to visit.

The court imposed a graduated access schedule with financial penalties for missed visits rather than ordering extended makeup access or imposing a fine.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion by the applicant for an order appointing an assessor and costs of assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent, who was self-represented at the motion, sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $5,996.05.

The applicant sought to limit costs to $2,250.00 and to suspend payment pending determination of child support arrears.

The court awarded costs of $3,000.00 payable in two instalments, finding that while the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party, the amount claimed was not reasonable and proportionate to the issues before the court.

The court rejected the request to suspend payment of costs pending resolution of the child support matter.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to lift an automatic stay of proceedings triggered by the respondent's filing of a divorce application in Superior Court, and for temporary spousal support.

The applicant had previously filed an application for spousal support in Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant entered the marriage fraudulently to obtain immigration status and lacked clean hands to seek equitable relief.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by filing the divorce application shortly before a scheduled hearing on spousal support, and that the applicant would suffer unreasonable prejudice if the stay remained in place.

The court lifted the stay and awarded temporary spousal support.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that an eleven-year-old child was in need of protection and should be placed in the care of the father under a six-month supervision order with conditions regarding access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the child had suffered physical and emotional harm due to ongoing parental conflict and that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or change to warrant a different disposition.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the issues of protection, disposition, or access.