Restraining order

The applicant mother brought a motion to change previous orders, primarily seeking continued child support and increased section 7 expenses for her 20-year-old son who graduated high school.

She argued the son was unable to withdraw from parental charge due to an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and sought an advance ruling for the father's contribution to future post-secondary expenses.

The court found the mother failed to prove the son's inability to withdraw from parental charge due to disability, noting her lack of credible expert evidence and the son's demonstrated independence.

Child support was terminated effective August 31, 2023, and the mother was ordered to repay overpaid support.

Claims for increased section 7 expenses and speculative post-secondary contributions were dismissed.

The mother's request to vacate a permanent restraining order against her was also denied due to her history of non-compliance and vexatious conduct.

The applicant sought to continue an ex parte order granting her a restraining order, sole decision-making, primary residence for children, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent moved to set aside the ex parte order, alleging the applicant made material omissions in her initial motion materials.

The court found that the applicant failed to fully and frankly disclose material facts, including details about the respondent's mental health treatment, her own mental health, police involvement, financial access, and the circumstances of the respondent's job termination.

Crucially, the applicant left the children in the respondent's sole care despite claiming he posed a significant risk of harm.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and set aside the ex parte order, emphasizing the strict duty of full disclosure in ex parte proceedings and the lack of sufficient evidence to justify continuing the order.

The Applicant sought a permanent restraining order against the Respondent under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act, alleging reasonable grounds to fear for her safety due to the Respondent's harassing and irresponsible behaviour following the breakdown of their common-law relationship.

The Respondent argued he was a tenant, not a cohabitant, and resisted the order.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, determining they were in a common-law relationship and that the Applicant had legitimate and reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

A permanent restraining order was issued.

The mother sought an urgent, without-notice restraining order against the step-father/father to protect herself and three children due to ongoing family violence and safety concerns.

The motion, initially under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), was amended to include relief under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) and Family Law Act (FLA).

The court found reasonable grounds for fear for safety based on evidence of physical and verbal abuse.

A temporary restraining order was granted on a without-notice basis, with the mother directed to forthwith commence a CLRA application.

The court emphasized the paramount purpose of child protection in granting the order despite CYFSA's notice requirements.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings, order supervised parenting time, grant temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and disburse the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant's conduct to be egregious, characterized by numerous breaches of court orders, vexatious litigation, and abusive behaviour.

The court granted the majority of the Respondent's requests, striking the Applicant's pleadings (with an exception for participation in parenting issues at trial), ordering supervised parenting time at the Applicant's sole cost, granting the Respondent temporary sole decision-making responsibility, and directing the release of matrimonial home proceeds to the Respondent.

The court declined to order a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant, finding the conduct, while troubling, did not meet the threshold for such an order, particularly given the imposition of supervised parenting.

A request for a restraining order against the Respondent's family members was also denied due to insufficient evidence and statutory limitations.

The trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' six-year-old son.

The mother sought recognition of a Syrian custody order, or alternatively, primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, supervised parenting time for the father, and child support.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making in Germany, or joint decision-making, and opposed retroactive child support.

The court dismissed the father's claims for primary residence and joint decision-making, refused to recognize the Syrian order due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard, and granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The court ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, including a share of special expenses, based on his actual income, dismissing his undue hardship claim.

A no-contact and communication order was issued against the father.

The applicant sought costs of $15,848 following a focused trial where she successfully obtained no-contact and communication orders under the Children's Law Reform Act, though her claim for a restraining order under the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The respondent did not make costs submissions.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found the applicant to be the overall successful party.

Despite the applicant's offers not meeting the technical requirements for enhanced costs, and no finding of bad faith against the respondent at trial, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in costs, finding the claimed amount excessive and disproportionate for the focused hearing, and declining to award costs for prior case management steps.

This trial addressed complex family law issues between separated parents, including decision-making authority, parenting schedule, child support, equalization of family property, and a restraining order.

The court ordered shared decision-making and equal parenting time for all three children, emphasizing the importance of both parents' involvement despite one child's resistance.

It dismissed the applicant's request for a restraining order, finding the respondent's problematic communications were reactive rather than coercive.

On financial matters, the court deemed the parents' incomes equal for 2023, resulting in no child support payable for that year, and ordered an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant, dismissing the respondent's claim for an unequal division of property.

The applicants sought an order to pass over the respondent as estate trustee of Peter Brown Kinnear's estate and appoint Katherine Kinnear as estate trustee during litigation, due to the respondent's inaction and non-compliance with a previous court order.

The court granted the order to pass over the respondent, finding that the applicants met the heavy burden required.

Despite the general rule against appointing an interested party, the court appointed Katherine Kinnear as estate trustee during litigation due to the lack of a realistic neutral alternative and the respondent's role in creating the situation.

The court also granted some ancillary orders, but narrowed the scope of a tracing order and a restraining order against the respondent.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and farm property.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, a restraining order, and a non-depletion order.

The court determined that the farm property, being primarily used for business, did not form part of the matrimonial home for the purpose of exclusive possession under the Family Law Act, restricting the matrimonial home to the residence and immediate yard.

Considering the best interests of the children, financial positions, and the short duration of the marriage, the court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the Respondent's reasons for remaining insufficient and her business not tied to the property.

The Respondent's requests for a restraining order and a non-depletion order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety or depletion of assets.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against the respondent under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act due to reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The parties, former cohabitants, were engaged in acrimonious litigation, particularly concerning the beneficial ownership of the Mayfair property where the applicant resided.

The respondent's unilateral declaration of intent to enter the property for bow hunting precipitated the motion.

The court found the applicant's fear for her psychological and physical safety to be reasonable and legitimate, supported by evidence of past intimidation and provocative conduct.

The interim restraining order was granted, prohibiting the respondent from attending within 200 metres of the Mayfair property and 100 metres of the applicant's place of employment.

The order was made without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek its termination if the proceeding is not finalized by June 30, 2023.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking permission to amend her application to include claims for constructive trust, intentional infliction of mental suffering and distress, and a restraining order against disseminating compromising videos/photographs.

She also sought an appraisal of an Australian property and further financial disclosure.

The Respondent opposed the motion, arguing delay, bad faith, and lack of merit for the new claims.

The court partially granted the motion, allowing the amendments, vacating the trial date, permitting the appraisal, and ordering specific financial disclosure, including intimate images and personal effects valuation.

The court found the proposed amendments tenable and necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings, despite the Applicant's delay.

The Applicant Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought motions for restraining orders against the Respondent Father under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The motions sought to restrain the father from coming within 500 metres of the mother's home and the children's locations, and from communicating with them.

The court reviewed the history of family violence, including the father's criminal charges and breaches of recognizance, and a period of attempted reconciliation.

The court accepted the children's expressed views and preferences, which indicated fear and distress regarding the father.

The court found that the father's repeated breaches constituted a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, amounting to family violence, and that there were reasonable grounds to fear for the safety of the mother and children.

The motions were granted.

The Applicant/Mother sought divorce, sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, supervised parenting time for the Father, retroactive and ongoing child support, a restraining order, and an order regarding a jointly purchased vehicle.

The Respondent/Father was noted in default and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, imputed an interim income to the Father for child support purposes and ordered financial disclosure, issued a final restraining order against the Father, and ordered the Father to take over the car loan payments and reimburse the Mother for past payments, or transfer ownership to the Mother.

Costs were awarded to the Mother.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary parenting orders.

The father sought primary residence or equal parenting time, while the mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, supervised parenting time for the father, and a restraining order.

The court found the father engaged in family violence, including financial abuse and manipulative behavior, and had unilaterally withheld the children.

The court granted the mother's requests for primary residence, sole decision-making, and a temporary restraining order, ordering the father's parenting time to be professionally supervised and requiring him to deposit all passports.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion seeking orders to protect herself and her two children from the respondent (father).

The mother requested the removal of all social media posts, commentary, and videos about them, a prohibition on future postings, and a restraining order.

The father opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in cyberbullying and family violence through his online conduct, violating the privacy of the mother and children and contravening the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering the father to remove existing posts, prohibiting future posts, and issuing a restraining order, citing the best interests of the children and the mother's safety concerns.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

This decision addresses an ex parte application for a restraining order under s. 4 of the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017, seeking to compel the respondent to stay away from the victim and destroy intimate images.

The court, noting this was the first such application in the Oshawa courthouse, provided reasons for its decision.

Despite finding the applicant's evidence compelling for an ex parte order, the application was deficient in form, particularly regarding publication bans and service details.

The court granted an interim 30-day restraining order instead of the requested 3-year order, allowing the applicant to rectify deficiencies and the respondent an opportunity to participate after service.

The Applicant sought to vary a consent order to restrict the Respondent's access to their child to supervised access only, citing the Respondent's alleged breaches of COVID-19 protocols and her own immunocompromised status.

The Respondent brought a counter-motion for police assistance, makeup access, and a restraining order.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion to restrict access, finding insufficient evidence of protocol breaches and criticizing her unilateral self-help.

The court also dismissed the Respondent's counter-motions for makeup access, police assistance, and a restraining order, but varied the order to require the Respondent to provide weekly COVID-19 test results.

The respondent, Edward Alan Stocker, brought a motion to set aside a restraining order previously granted without notice to the applicant, Laura Lynn Boyle.

The parties, common-law spouses, were living separately in their co-owned home.

Stocker argued the order was based on false facts and used as a tactic for exclusive possession.

The court found that on a full record, Boyle did not have reasonable grounds to fear for her safety, and her initial affidavit lacked full disclosure.

The court emphasized that ex parte restraining orders should expire at the next hearing, shifting the burden back to the applicant to re-establish entitlement.

The restraining order was set aside.

This case addresses a motion and cross-motion in a high-conflict family dispute concerning parental alienation and non-compliance with prior parenting orders.

The Respondent Mother sought temporary custody and an order for the children to attend a "Family Bridges" reunification workshop, alleging the Applicant Father's systematic alienation and sabotage of therapeutic efforts.

The Applicant Father denied the allegations and sought a focused assessment.

The court found the Applicant Father consistently breached previous orders by involving the children in adult disputes and undermining reunification therapy.

The court granted the Respondent Mother's requested relief, including temporary sole custody, enrollment in the Family Bridges program, a restraining order against the Applicant Father, and ordered him to cover the workshop and aftercare costs.

The Applicant Father's cross-motion was dismissed.