Justice S.B. Sherr

This is a costs endorsement following temporary motions for custody of and parenting time with a five-year-old child and for child support.

The mother was granted temporary custody and child support, while the father obtained graduated unsupervised parenting time with supervised exchanges at his expense.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue (custody) and awarded her costs, but reduced the amount from her claim of $3,718.83 to $1,500 to account for the father's limited means and the divided success on parenting time.

Costs were ordered payable at $100 per month starting April 1, 2021.

This is a status review application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning an 11-year-old boy with complex special needs.

The child was removed from the mother's care in August 2017 and placed with the father, subject to society supervision.

The mother sought custody or, alternatively, a six-month supervision order with the child in her care.

The father and society sought a section 102 custody order placing the child with the father, with the mother's parenting time to remain in the discretion of the father and P.W. (the father's wife).

The Office of the Children's Lawyer initially supported the father's position but later proposed a phased transition to equal parenting time.

The court found that intervention through a protection order remains necessary and that it is in the child's best interests to be placed in the custody of the father pursuant to section 102 of the Act.

The court ordered a phased transition of the mother's parenting time from fully supervised to unsupervised by April 2021, with specific holiday and summer schedules.

The court rejected equal parenting time and discretionary arrangements, finding the level of parental conflict too high and the mother's judgment and insight insufficient to support such arrangements.

This was a motion to change custody and access orders brought by both parents.

The original order from July 2018 provided for joint custody of a young child, with the mother as primary caregiver and the father having limited parenting time.

The father sought increased overnight and holiday parenting time.

The mother sought sole custody and supervised access, citing concerns about the father's conduct.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including deteriorating parental communication, police and Children's Aid involvement, the father's reckless driving with the child while his licence was suspended, and an assault charge arising from a violent incident at a church.

The court changed the order to grant sole custody to the mother and ordered graduated supervised parenting time for the father, with specific conditions addressing safety concerns.

The father brought a motion to change the parenting time terms in a final order dated March 27, 2017, seeking overnight access and holiday time with the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and subsequently resiled from temporary minutes of settlement that had been executed on August 11, 2020, which provided for overnight parenting time.

The court found that there had been material changes in circumstances, including the father's consistent exercise of parenting time, his improved parenting skills, the child's aging, and the mother's undue restrictions on access.

The court granted the father's motion, implementing a graduated overnight parenting schedule commencing November 7, 2020, with expansion to full weekends beginning February 12, 2021, and holiday time including Christmas and Easter.

This was a motion to change final parenting and child support orders regarding a four-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody despite not having seen the child for 15 months.

The mother sought sole custody with supervised access for the father, a restraining order, and increased child support.

The court found material changes in circumstances including breakdown of parental communication, the father's controlling and abusive conduct toward the mother, his 15-month absence from the child's life, and his poor judgment.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the father, granted a restraining order against the father, and increased child support based on the father's actual income.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's amended Answer/Claim due to his deliberate breach of multiple court orders, including orders to pay child support, pay two costs orders, and provide financial disclosure.

The father did not attend the motion hearing.

The court found that the father had deliberately breached the orders and had not provided reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The court struck the father's amended Answer/Claim but permitted him to restore it upon satisfaction of conditions, including payment of $3,000 and provision of updated financial disclosure within 45 days.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings in family law cases involving children should only occur in exceptional circumstances, but found such circumstances existed given the father's open defiance of court orders and the settled nature of the parenting arrangements.

A motion to change an existing access order for a mother's contact with her five-year-old child during a status review application.

The mother sought unsupervised access twice weekly, including overnight visits.

The maternal grandfather, who had custody of the child, opposed the motion and sought to restrict access to virtual contact due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court found that the mother had made significant gains since the original order, that the existing order was no longer in the child's best interests, and that unsupervised in-person access should be restored with specified terms and conditions.

The court rejected the maternal grandfather's concerns as lacking reliable evidentiary foundation and found that the pandemic alone did not justify suspending in-person contact where appropriate safety protocols were in place.

The mother and father, parents of three children (ages 9, 7, and 4), brought competing motions for temporary custody and parenting time.

The father had retained the children following an oral agreement to rotate them during the COVID-19 pandemic and refused to return them unless the mother signed a separation agreement.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver prior to the pandemic, that an oral agreement existed to share parenting time during the pandemic, and that the father's conduct in breaching the agreement and coercing the mother constituted controlling and coercive behavior.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and ordered the father to have parenting time on alternate weekends commencing June 19, 2020, with a warning that further enforcement proceedings could result in more drastic remedial measures.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding a seven-year-old child.

The society sought placement of the child with the father, subject to supervision, after issuing a protection application concerning the mother's mental health and ability to manage the child's behaviour.

The mother opposed placement with the father and sought to retain custody with supervision terms.

The father consented to placement with himself and proposed limited day access for the mother.

The court found that the society met its two-part test: establishing reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother, and that supervision terms alone were inadequate to protect the child.

The court placed the child in the temporary care of the father on a without prejudice basis, pending further investigation into concerns about the father's domestic violence history.

The court implemented a graduated access schedule for the mother, increasing from day visits to overnight visits as she stabilizes her mental health.

This is a costs decision arising from motions regarding temporary custody and parenting time for a 10-month-old child.

The respondent (father) was successful on the temporary custody issue and was the more successful party on the parenting time issue.

The applicant (mother) sought equal parenting time or alternatively three out of every four weekends, while the respondent proposed parenting time similar to what the court ultimately ordered.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but suspended payment for 2020 and ordered monthly payments of $75 starting January 1, 2021, taking into account the applicant's limited financial circumstances as a 20-year-old unemployed individual receiving only modest support from the Children's Aid Society.

This is a costs decision arising from motions brought by the parties regarding custody and access to their four-year-old daughter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought enforcement of an existing custody order and requested temporary changes to limit the father to virtual access.

The father sought temporary custody of the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to enforce the existing order and dismissed the father's motion to change custody.

The court made temporary modifications to the access order, granting the father substantial parenting time including weekend access and midweek overnight visits, along with daily virtual access for both parents.

The mother was determined to be the more successful party and was awarded costs.

The custodial father brought a motion to suspend the mother's face-to-face parenting time with their 12-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the child's alleged medical vulnerability and concerns about the mother's ability to follow health protocols.

The mother opposed the motion and sought restoration of her parenting time with make-up access.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting assessment of the child's best interests but determined that the child's medical condition did not justify suspension of access.

While the mother had engaged in one instance of non-compliance with physical distancing protocols, the court found this insufficient to warrant radical alteration of the existing parenting arrangement.

The court restored the mother's parenting time with minor modifications to address COVID-19 health concerns and granted make-up time for missed access.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a ten-year-old child.

The mother was the successful party, obtaining primary residence and custody with specified access to the father, and securing an increase in child support.

The father's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including failure to comply with disclosure timelines, refusal to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and delay in agreeing to support, influenced the costs award.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $400 per month commencing May 1, 2020.

The court allocated 15% of the costs award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This is a costs endorsement following a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The applicant sought costs of $7,067.02 after obtaining a more favourable result than her settlement offer.

The respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately avoiding financial disclosure, unduly delaying proceedings, stopping support payments despite ability to pay, and misrepresenting his income.

The court found the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the motion result, triggering full recovery costs consequences.

The court also found bad faith conduct warranting full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's costs were fixed at $7,067.02, payable immediately.

This motion to change involved competing applications by both parents regarding custody, decision-making authority, and parenting time for their 10-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and changes to the parenting schedule, while the father sought sole custody and increased parenting time.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in primary residence, but found a material change in circumstances regarding major decision-making due to significantly increased conflict between the parties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, terminated the joint custody arrangement, and modified the parenting schedule to reduce direct parental engagement while maintaining the father's meaningful relationship with the child.

The applicant mother sought child support for a three-year-old child from the respondent father.

The mother requested the table amount of $510 per month based on an assessed income of $55,336.

The father claimed undue hardship under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and requested a reduced amount of $200 per month.

The court assessed the father's income at $51,938 for 2019 and $53,236 for 2020, resulting in table amounts of $478 and $491 respectively.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to demonstrate exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate hardship.

The court found the father had surplus income and that his discretionary expenses (particularly a $630 monthly car payment) were not necessary.

The court ordered the father to pay the table amount retroactively from February 1, 2019, with credits for payments made and arrears payable at $100 per month.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision on parenting and support arrangements for two children.

The applicant (mother) was granted sole custody with specified parenting time for the respondent (father).

The court awarded costs to the mother after finding that the father failed to accept a settlement offer that was more favourable than the trial result.

The father's unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings, including quitting his job to avoid child support obligations, failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, and refusing to engage in settlement discussions, resulted in a costs award of $14,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion hearing on custody, access, and child support.

The mother sought temporary custody and child support; the father sought joint custody and unsupervised access.

The parties agreed on child support and primary residence with the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary custody with supervised access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $4,746; the father sought no costs or minimal costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and parenting time issues and awarded costs of $2,000, payable at $125 per month starting March 1, 2020.

The court declined to enforce the costs order through the Family Responsibility Office as the costs were attributable to parenting issues, not support.

A child protection trial involving three children: JSP (8 years old), JS (4 years old), and RS (9 months old).

The Children's Aid Society sought orders placing JSP and JS in the final care and custody of their paternal grandparents and placing RS in extended society care.

The mother opposed these applications and sought placement of all children in her care or jointly with the maternal grandmother.

The court found that RS was a child in need of protection due to risk of physical harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues, substance abuse, volatile behaviour, lack of insight, and inability to work effectively with service providers.

The court found that intervention through court orders was necessary to protect all three children.

The court placed JSP and JS in the custody of the paternal grandparents and RS in extended society care, with carefully structured access orders balancing the children's need for connection with their mother against the risks posed by her conduct and mental health challenges.

Trial decision concerning custody, parenting time, and child support for two children (ages 11 and 8) following separation.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with specified parenting time for the respondent father, travel rights, and child support based on imputed income.

The respondent father sought sole custody with limited parenting time for the mother and opposed child support.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, established a parenting schedule for the father, and imputed annual income of $29,120 to the father, ordering child support of $447 monthly retroactive to October 1, 2018.

The father's conduct, including failure to pay support, sporadic parenting involvement, and non-compliance with court orders, was determinative.