Kiran Sah

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support in an undefended family law trial.

The respondent father failed to attend the trial or comply with procedural orders.

The court reviewed the history of care, noting the father's erratic behaviour, family violence, and recent involvement of the Children's Aid Society after he destroyed the children's electronics.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, making no order for the father's parenting time.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears for both table amounts and section 7 expenses.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to stay and suspend his spousal support obligations on an interim basis following the termination of his employment.

The responding party (former wife) opposed the motion, arguing she still required support and that the moving party had received a significant severance package.

The court applied the four-part test for an interim variation of a final support order and found the moving party established a strong prima facie case, hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The court granted the motion, ordering the stay and suspension of spousal support obligations prospectively, effective March 31, 2023.

The applicant father brought a motion for non-compliance against the respondent mother regarding her failure to obey court orders relating to parenting time, therapy for the children, her own therapy, and costs.

The mother brought a cross-motion alleging the father failed to pay child support arrears.

The court found the mother non-compliant with multiple orders, noting her ongoing alienating behaviour and failure to facilitate the children's relationship with the father.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed as no arrears were owed.

The court ordered specific remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, including the resumption of virtual parenting time, the appointment of specific therapists for the children, and an order restricting the mother from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and primary residency of the children.

The respondent brought a countermotion seeking a nesting order or exclusive possession, and parenting time.

The court lifted the existing interim restraining order, finding the applicant's fears were not objectively legitimate to warrant the order.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding a nesting order inappropriate due to ongoing conflict.

The court ordered a parenting schedule providing the respondent with regular overnight parenting time and dismissed the applicant's request for interim sole decision-making as premature.

The respondent brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligations following his retirement.

The applicant opposed the termination, arguing support was intended for their joint lives, and sought a lump sum to cover her tax liabilities from failing to declare past support as income.

The court found the respondent's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances as explicitly contemplated in the original consent order.

Concluding that the applicant had sufficient time to achieve self-sufficiency and that her tax liabilities were her own responsibility, the court terminated spousal support retroactively to December 31, 2016, and dismissed the applicant's claims.

The Children's Aid Society initiated a Status Review Application concerning two children, S.W. (17) and S.H. (6), who were previously under a supervision order with their mother.

The Society sought termination of the order for S.W. and extended society care (later custody to kin) for S.H. The mother and S.H.'s father opposed, seeking return of the children.

The court found both children remained in need of protection due to the parents' persistent instability, mental health issues, and lack of engagement.

It ordered the termination of the order for S.W. (who was doing well with paternal family in New Brunswick) and granted custody of S.H. to the kin caregivers (L.B. and Q.B.) in New Brunswick, with incidental orders for access and authority to obtain identification without parental consent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous parenting order to permit her to relocate with the parties' nine-year-old autistic son from London, Ontario to Moncton, New Brunswick.

The mother argued the move was necessary due to better French-language autism therapy programs and employment prospects in New Brunswick.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's inability to secure employment in Ontario and uncertainty regarding autism funding.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the relocation, finding the mother's plan was child-centered and would better meet the child's needs, while ordering adjusted parenting time and travel cost arrangements for the respondent father.

The mother took the parties' three children to Newfoundland and Labrador for a vacation and subsequently decided to remain there, obtaining an ex parte Emergency Protection Order (EPO) in that province.

The father brought an urgent motion in Ontario seeking the return of the children.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that it was not required to recognize the Newfoundland EPO as it was obtained without notice to the father.

The court determined that the children were habitually resident in Ontario, the father had not acquiesced to their relocation, and ordered the immediate return of the children to Ontario to resume a shared parenting arrangement.

The Children's Aid Society brought motions to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandparents, with specified access for the father and supervised access for the mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion for expanded unsupervised access.

The court granted the Society's motions, placing the child with the grandparents on consent.

The court ordered the father to have a minimum of eight hours of access per week, with the Society having discretion over supervision.

The mother was granted a minimum of two hours of supervised access per week due to concerns about her mental health and behavior, and the lack of an approved supervisor, with a view to expanding access if a suitable supervisor is found.

The applicant sought costs of $3,272.91 following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to her limited financial means, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $500.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, had made reasonable offers to settle, and that the respondent's failure to respond to settlement efforts was unreasonable.

After deducting time entries unrelated to the motion and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $2,000.