Kiran Sah

The applicant sought an order granting permission to obtain a transcript of a case conference held on September 11, 2023, claiming it was needed for clarity on the judge's oral directions regarding the respondent's professional corporation.

The respondent did not object to the release but expressed concern about the transcript being used as evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the presumptive confidentiality of case conferences, similar to settlement conferences, to foster frank discussions.

The court held that transcripts should only be released in extraordinary circumstances, such as threats to health or safety, which were not present in this case.

Differing recollections of discussions were deemed insufficient grounds for release, and any recommendations made at a case conference are not binding.

This family law trial addressed the respondent mother's request to relocate an 11-year-old child from L[...] to M[...], Ontario, and her associated requests for sole decision-making and primary residence.

The applicant father opposed the relocation, seeking to maintain the existing equal shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making.

The court found that the respondent mother failed to prove that the relocation was in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the child's stability, educational needs, and the unreasonableness of the proposed parenting plan given the parties' limited financial means.

The court also found no compelling reason to alter the joint decision-making regime.

Consequently, the existing shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making were ordered to continue, with the applicant paying set-off child support.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the respondent mother was non-compliant with an interim consent order regarding family reconciliation therapy and requested a financial penalty.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the order was frustrated and seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the respondent mother non-compliant, rejecting her reliance on the Health Care Consent Act and her claims of therapist bias or children's refusal.

The court emphasized the mother's chronic delays, lack of prioritization of parenting time and therapy, and failure to exercise parental authority.

The court ordered the respondent mother to pay a $1,500 penalty and immediately comply with the therapy order, and dismissed her request for OCL involvement, noting the children's advanced age and the closing window for reconciliation.

This family law trial concerned the equalization of net family property after the parties had resolved child and spousal support.

The remaining issues were the respondent's claimed date of marriage deduction for a property (the Ailsa property) and whether a $6,000 settlement received by the applicant should be included in her net family property.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a date of marriage deduction, finding he failed to discharge his onus of proof with reliable evidence regarding beneficial ownership or value.

The court also found that the applicant's settlement funds were used to repay a loan from her parents and should not be included as an asset.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant an equalization payment of $41,711.99, with a portion to be paid from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought costs of $4,898.55 on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the applicant's motion for the trial judge's recusal.

The applicant, a self-represented mother, claimed an inability to pay.

The court noted significant deficiencies in the respondent's bill of costs, including a failure to break down hours spent specifically on the recusal motion.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $600 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant brought an oral motion for the recusal of the trial judge, alleging bias due to the judge's prior involvement in case management and administrative functions related to the file.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high onus of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality, the fact-specific nature of recusal cases, and the importance of judicial continuity in family law proceedings.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer moved for the appointment of amicus curiae in a complex international child abduction case.

Both the self-represented applicant and the respondent opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's conduct, including her inability to focus on legal issues, failure to file evidence, and mistrust of the court process, risked injustice.

The court determined that amicus assistance was essential for a fair and orderly trial, despite the applicant's right to self-representation, and that the potential for delay was manageable.

The applicant brought a motion within her Motion to Change seeking non-dissipation and vesting orders against the respondent's assets, primarily to secure an unfulfilled pension equalization payment and potentially revive spousal support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation by the respondent or to establish a prima facie case for spousal support, as the spousal support release remained valid.

The court noted that both parties shared responsibility for delays in pension division.

The parties sought to vary a 2016 final order regarding parenting time and child support for their child.

The respondent initiated a motion to change parenting time, and the applicant sought to vary child support and exchange methods.

The court assessed the child's best interests, including views and preferences from a Voice of the Child Report, and the parents' credibility and willingness to cooperate.

The court varied the parenting schedule to a two-week rotating schedule, adjusting exchange methods, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordering retroactive and ongoing support.

This temporary care and custody hearing involved three Indigenous children affiliated with Caldwell First Nations.

The Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin sought to place the eldest child (L.A.) with the father and the two younger children (M.W. and H.W.) with the mother, subject to supervision.

The father opposed, seeking custody of all three.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the paramount An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, found that L.A. could remain with the father under terms.

However, M.W. and H.W. were at risk of physical and emotional harm with the father due to ongoing verbal and physical abuse, neglect, and the father's non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court ordered M.W. and H.W. into the temporary care of the mother, with terms to ensure their safety and cultural connection.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a five-day trial in an international child abduction case, citing educational conflicts, inability to file evidence after counsel termination, and uncompleted procedural steps.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not, noting the children's preference to remain with the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the need for prompt disposition in international child abduction cases under Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules, and found her reasons insufficient to warrant delay.

This temporary care and custody hearing concerned two Indigenous children, R.R. (born 2017) and X.E. (born 2020), registered with the Oneida Nation of the Thames.

Less than a month after final orders placed the children in their mother's care under supervision, the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex initiated a Status Review Application due to new protection concerns, including unexplained injuries to X.E., weight loss, inconsistent daycare attendance, and the mother's alcohol consumption and inconsistent commitment to access.

The Society sought temporary care and custody, while the mother sought the children's return under strict supervision or alternative placements.

The court found that the Society met its onus to establish that the children would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother and that supervision terms would not adequately protect them.

Considering the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (Federal Act), the court determined that the children's safety, security, and well-being necessitated their continued placement in Society care, despite the Federal Act's emphasis on cultural continuity and family preservation.

The mother's motions for return, alternative placement, and maximum parenting time were dismissed.

This case concerns a status review application and focused hearing to determine an access regime for a child, J.N., who was placed in extended society care with Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin.

The respondent father, M.M., sought placement of the child in his care or with extended paternal family to support cultural heritage, but failed to attend subsequent hearings or provide evidence.

The court assessed the child's best interests, considering the child's struggles, inconsistent access history with the father, and the importance of maintaining cultural and racial identity.

The court ultimately ordered a limited, supervised access schedule for the father and mandated the Society to facilitate the child's connection with his paternal cultural heritage.

The applicant father sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' seven-year-old son to Mexico.

The respondent mother opposed, relying on two exceptions: grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse and the child's resistance to return.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold for grave risk of harm, noting a lack of objective evidence and the father's amenability to the justice system.

The court also determined that the child, at seven and a half years old, had not reached an appropriate age and degree of maturity for his views to be determinative, as his objections were inconsistent and influenced by his new environment rather than fear for his safety.

The father's application for the child's return was granted, with specific undertakings for the child's protection and transition in Mexico.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for specified access between a child and his maternal grandparents.

The child's foster parent brought a cross-motion to be added as a party to the child protection proceeding.

The child had been in the foster parent's care for over two years and expressed a strong desire not to have contact with the maternal grandparents.

The court granted the foster parent's motion to be added as a party, finding that the foster parent had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and was necessary to determine the issues.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for specified access, ordering instead that any access between the child and the maternal grandparents be subject to the child's wishes, as confirmed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court addressed cross-motions between separated parents concerning parenting time, decision-making, and support for their two children.

The applicant mother sought compliance with a prior consent order for shared parenting of their 14-year-old son (C.) and remedies for alleged non-compliance, including reconciliation therapy.

The respondent father sought to vary the order for C. to reside primarily with him, reflecting C.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the mother's non-compliance claim, finding a credible explanation for the father's actions given the interim nature of the prior order and the mother's contradictory stance.

The court varied the order for C. to reside primarily with the father, giving significant weight to C.'s strong and consistent views and preferences, citing a breakdown of trust with the mother.

The mother's request for reconciliation therapy was dismissed due to C.'s resistance and lack of compelling evidence for its benefit at this stage.

The court also dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making authority for their 12-year-old daughter (G.), noting no imminent significant decisions and poor parental communication.

Support variation claims from both parties were dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure, with these issues deferred to trial.

The court ordered the father to provide financial disclosure and both parents to refrain from derogatory remarks about each other to the children.

The applicants, Roger Bruce Stanley Swinden and Donna Leah Crowell, submitted a joint application to validate their marriage solemnized on October 2, 2021.

The issue arose because the Reverend who performed the ceremony was not registered under Ontario's Marriage Act, RSO 1990, c.M.3, a fact unknown to the parties and the Reverend at the time.

The court applied Section 31 of the Marriage Act, which allows for validation of marriages entered into in good faith despite an unauthorized officiant or procedural irregularities.

The court found that the marriage met all four elements for validation: it was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was legally disqualified, and they had lived and cohabited as a married couple since the ceremony.

Consequently, the marriage was deemed valid.

The parties separated after a six-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent mother sought equal shared parenting and joint decision-making.

The court found the respondent mother's evidence regarding her parenting time and work schedule unreliable.

The court ordered sole decision-making and primary residence to the applicant father, with a defined parenting schedule for the respondent mother.

The court also imputed income to the respondent mother for child support purposes and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent mother was awarded retroactive and lump sum spousal support, which was offset against her child support arrears.

The applicant sought to confirm and enforce a provisional child support order made in the United Kingdom against the respondent residing in Ontario.

The court found there was insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether the provisional order should be confirmed, particularly regarding retroactive support.

The court adjourned the matter and ordered the respondent to file the required financial forms and tax returns, and permitted the applicant to file a reply affidavit.

The applicant father brought a motion for costs under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent mother breached multiple terms of a prior order regarding virtual parenting time.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable, relying on previous findings of her manipulative and alienating behaviour.

The court concluded the mother breached several provisions by undermining the father's parenting time, failing to ensure the children were visible, and failing to document and address the children's resistance.

The court ordered the mother to pay $10,000 in costs as a sanction and incentive for future compliance.