Justice S. E. J. Paull

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

The respondent was the largely successful party at trial, having been granted primary residence and final decision-making authority on key issues.

However, the respondent failed to make any offers to settle, and both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

Taking into account the divided success, the parties' conduct, and the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded the respondent fixed costs of $3,000, payable in monthly installments.

Following a trial regarding parenting time where the respondent was successful in obtaining an order for supervised access, the respondent sought costs of $10,960.

The applicant argued against a costs order due to her limited income from ODSP and her role as the primary caregiver.

The court found the applicant had acted unreasonably during the litigation but acknowledged her financial circumstances and the potential impact on the child.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $4,800, payable at $200 per month.

Father sought an urgent motion for interim sole custody of the parties' young daughter, alleging serious concerns regarding mother's ability to appropriately and safely parent.

Mother sought an interim joint custody order with a shared residential schedule.

The court found that while there were verified concerns regarding mother's home maintenance and supervision practices documented by Children's Aid Society, the most recent independent evidence from the child's physician and the transferee protection agency indicated stabilization since mother's relocation to reside with her father.

The court granted an interim joint custody order with a structured shared residential arrangement, requiring both parents to complete parenting programming and mother to engage in additional supports recommended by the protection agency.

The paternal grandparents sought an urgent motion to temporarily suspend face-to-face access between their grandchild and his mother during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The grandparents cited concerns about the child's asthma diagnosis, the mother's alleged failure to adhere to social distancing protocols, and the mother's other child's recent illness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that prima facie urgency had not been established.

The court held that COVID-19 concerns alone do not automatically warrant suspension of parenting time and that the party seeking to restrict access must provide specific evidence of the other party's failure to adhere to safety protocols.

The court emphasized the importance of children maintaining contact with both parents during the pandemic and encouraged the parties to communicate and cooperate on safety measures.

The applicant mother sought an order terminating the respondent father's access to their two-year-old child, citing his past drug use, abusive behavior, and inconsistent attendance at supervised visits.

The father sought to continue supervised access.

The court found that while the father's inconsistent attendance was concerning, the mother had unilaterally terminated access contrary to an interim order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court held that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold required to terminate the parent-child relationship and ordered continued supervised access.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements where the respondent sought to establish contact with his son after seven years of no contact.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought no access, child support, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's age, strong preferences against contact, and the respondent's ongoing pattern of harassing and threatening behaviour.

The court ordered no access, imputed income for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order prohibiting direct and indirect contact.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary a temporary care order placing a newborn child with his parents under supervision.

The child had been apprehended at birth due to concerns regarding the father's significant criminal history, domestic violence, substance abuse, and the mother's history of trauma and addiction.

Following an interim order placing the child with the mother and paternal grandparents, the parents were allowed to return home together under strict terms of supervision.

The Society sought to place the child in its care after the parents tested positive for methamphetamine, failed to comply with court-ordered programming, and the father refused to engage with services or attend supervised access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and granted the motion, placing the child in the Society's temporary care with access to the parents at the Society's discretion.

This is a costs decision following a two-day family law trial concerning custody and child support of a child born in 2012.

The parents separated in November 2017.

The applicant sought joint custody with shared residential arrangements and opposed child support, while the respondent sought primary residence and child support retroactive to separation.

The court found the respondent largely successful, ordering primary residence with the respondent, joint custody with final decision-making authority to the respondent, one additional overnight per week for the applicant, and child support on an imputed income of $35,000 retroactive to separation.

The respondent sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $14,252.13 inclusive.

The court awarded partial costs of $7,500.00 inclusive to the respondent, considering her success at trial, her reasonable offer to settle, the applicant's unreasonable behaviour regarding financial disclosure and his position on child support, and the applicant's limited financial means.

A child protection trial involving three children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that the children were in need of protection due to physical harm and risk of physical harm.

The respondent father (M.A.R.) and his partner (T.E.) were alleged to have exposed the children to excessive alcohol use, domestic violence, and inappropriate physical discipline.

The mother (E.M.T.) was aware of the abuse but failed to disclose it in prior custody proceedings.

The court found the children had suffered actual physical harm and were at risk of further physical harm, but dismissed the claim for risk of emotional harm.

The children were placed in the mother's care subject to supervision with discretionary access to the father through the Society.

A motion for recusal brought by respondent M.A.R. during a child protection trial.

M.A.R. alleged that the judge's examination of a Children's Aid Society worker regarding her training during a voir dire on the admissibility of children's statements, and the incorporation of two answers into the ruling, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the judge's questions were appropriate, routine, and consistent with the expanded role judges have in child protection proceedings where the best interests of children are at stake.

This is a costs decision following a two-day trial in a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought to terminate child support for one child and suspend it for another, claiming a change in circumstances due to health issues preventing continued employment.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought recovery of section 7 expenses.

The court found a change in circumstances for 2016 but imputed income on the applicant from 2017 onward based on intentional underemployment.

The respondent was substantially more successful at trial.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 (inclusive) to the respondent, accounting for divided success on less dominant issues and the applicant's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure and failure to provide an offer to settle.

Two motions were heard by the respondents D.L. and T.S. in a child protection proceeding.

The first motion sought to vary the interim access order by increasing access to the children and permitting community visits.

The second motion sought an order prohibiting access by S.M.L.B. (the biological mother of one child) to J.L. The court found a material change in circumstances and granted a modest increase in access to D.L. and T.S., conditional on their participation in parenting programming.

The court rejected the motion to prohibit access by S.M.L.B., finding that supervised access was in the child's best interests and should continue.

A costs decision following a trial on the merits regarding a prohibition on changing children's surnames.

The respondent sought to change the children's surnames from "Schaafsma" to "Schaafsma Eaton" following a prior custody order.

The applicant brought an application seeking to prohibit the name change or, alternatively, to require a hyphenated surname.

The application was dismissed, permitting the respondent to proceed with the name change applications to the Registrar General.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent in the amount of $11,085 inclusive.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning access to children and child support.

The respondent sought costs of $26,266.74 following trial.

The court found divided success on the main issues: the respondent succeeded on section 7 expenses and her primary position on access subject to children's wishes, while the applicant succeeded on child support arrears and his primary claim for counselling to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parties behaved equally unreasonably on the central issue of access and that neither party had properly constituted settlement offers under the Family Law Rules.

The father applied for sole custody, supervised access for the mother, and child support.

The mother sought custody or, alternatively, unsupervised access.

The child had been in the father's care since the Children's Aid Society intervened due to the mother's mental health struggles and inability to cope.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that the parties' poor communication and the mother's instability made joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court granted the mother unsupervised access, concluding that the risks associated with her mental health had diminished and were outweighed by the child's need for a relationship with her mother and siblings.

The mother was also ordered to pay child support.