Kurz

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of four court orders regarding his parenting time and an order requiring disclosure of information about the child.

The court found that the mother had willfully disobeyed the parenting time orders by failing to take positive steps to require the 15-year-old child to attend access, instead encouraging the child's estrangement.

The court found the mother in contempt for the parenting time breaches but exercised its discretion not to find her in contempt for failing to disclose the child's babysitting address, reserving the penalty to a subsequent remedies hearing.

The LSO defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented, sought a further indefinite adjournment of the motion, claiming that psychological disabilities prevented him from participating.

The court found that the medical notes provided by the plaintiff's treating physicians were insufficient to establish an inability to participate in the proceedings.

The court denied the indefinite adjournment, set a litigation schedule for the motion to strike, and allowed the plaintiff to bring a further motion for adjournment if supported by cogent expert medical evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim variation of final parenting and child support orders, seeking sole custody, updated table support, and increased section 7 expenses for the parties' 15-year-old child's elite ballet training.

The parties resolved the parenting issues on consent.

The court applied the Berta test for interim variation and found the mother established a strong prima facie case and hardship regarding the ballet expenses.

The court ordered the self-represented respondent father to pay updated table support of $1,851 per month and increased his section 7 contribution to $1,000 per month on a temporary basis.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for temporary custody of their two children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged the father had a severe alcohol abuse problem, supported by bank records showing extensive alcohol purchases and contemporaneous text messages from the father's sister.

The court found the father's alcohol consumption posed a risk to the children and granted the mother primary care, with the father restricted to supervised day access.

The court also granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, prioritizing the children's best interests and need for stability.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to obtain shared custody on a 2-2-5-5 basis.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the father's psychiatric records, disability benefit applications, and a Voice of the Child report.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the disclosure of the father's medical and financial records, finding that the need to determine the children's best interests outweighed any claim of privilege.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

The applicant father brought a motion to reinstate access to his 11-year-old son after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated it.

The mother argued the father was cruel, the child did not want to see him alone, and the father could not care for the child's special medical needs.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and was filled with hyperbole.

The court held that financial disputes do not justify terminating access and ordered a gradual reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause, finding it would be counterproductive.

The respondent step-daughter brought a motion to have life insurance proceeds paid out to her as estate trustee, and sought to dispense with service on her step-brother, who was the sole beneficiary but had been convicted in Lebanon of murdering the insured.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service, finding that the step-daughter had not demonstrated that service was impractical or impossible.

The court noted that even convicted murderers have rights to notice in civil proceedings, and adjourned the motion to allow for service or an application for substituted service.

The mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the father's shared parenting time with their two younger children, seeking to keep them in her exclusive care.

She argued the children wished to stay with her and expressed anxiety about the father's home and his pandemic precautions.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the mother was using the pandemic to continue her long-standing pattern of undermining his relationship with the children and breaching court orders.

The court found the motion urgent not because of COVID-19 risks, but due to the risk of emotional harm to the children from the mother's unilateral suspension of parenting time.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no material change in circumstances and ordering the regular shared parenting schedule to continue.

The applicant father, residing in Alberta, sought to confirm a provisional order reducing his child support obligations and arrears for his three children residing in Ontario with the respondent mother.

The father claimed a reduction in income due to cataracts and that the oldest child was no longer a child of the marriage.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order's reduction of arrears, finding the father was intentionally underemployed and had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support.

The court suspended support for the oldest child pending further evidence of her law school enrollment, but ordered ongoing table support for the two younger children based on the father's imputed income.

The respondent mother in a high-conflict custody dispute moved to add the applicant father's new partner, sister, and mother as collateral respondents to her motion to change.

She sought a restraining order against them, alleging they colluded with the father to alienate the children from her.

The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court applied the Worrall factors, concluding the collateral respondents were necessary parties and that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified their addition despite the impending trial date.

Following a guardianship trial where success was divided, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of the proceeding and costs of three interlocutory motions.

The court found that while the applicants were more successful than the respondents, their insistence on unworkable care plans and the parties' mutual animosity unduly lengthened the proceeding.

The court denied enhanced costs and costs of the interlocutory motions, awarding the applicants partial indemnity costs fixed at $56,760.72.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary access order to increase his parenting time with the parties' two children, aged 16 and 11.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the children's expressed fears.

Relying on Voice of the Child reports, the court declined to force the 16-year-old to attend access against her will, noting her age and right to withdraw from parental control.

The court also dismissed the father's request to increase access to the 11-year-old, finding that the maximum contact principle was outweighed by the child's best interests and need for security.

In a family law trial, the court determined the parties' date of separation and the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court accepted the applicant's separation date of March 1, 2015, finding it supported by objective factors including the cessation of intimate relations, separate socializing, and the applicant's refusal to allow the respondent to use the matrimonial home for a risky business venture.

The court found the respondent entitled to non-compensatory spousal support starting August 30, 2018, the date he first claimed it.

However, the court imputed an income of $29,100 to the respondent due to intentional underemployment, as he had retired early to pursue an unrealistic career in home rebuilding.

The court reserved judgment on the quantum of spousal support pending further submissions on potential double-dipping and post-retirement income attribution.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and its immediate partition and sale.

The respondent husband consented to exclusive possession but opposed the remaining relief.

The court found no urgency to justify hearing the motion for a restraining order before a case conference.

However, the court held that it was in the interests of justice to order the immediate partition and sale of the home, as the wife had a prima facie right to it, the husband had previously requested the same relief in his pleadings, and delaying the inevitable order would only increase costs and waste judicial resources.

The plaintiff's former solicitors brought a motion to be removed from the record after the solicitor-client relationship broke down.

Before the motion was sworn, new counsel undertook to place herself on the record, rendering the motion moot.

Despite this, the former solicitors proceeded with the motion and sought $5,000 in costs.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding the motion was unnecessary, foreseeably moot, and vastly disproportionate to the issues and amounts in question.

The applicant father sought sole custody, an unequal division of net family properties, and $2 million in damages against the respondent mother for child abuse and neglect.

The mother's pleadings had been struck years prior due to the failures of her litigation guardian.

At the uncontested trial, evidence revealed the mother suffers from severe intellectual deficiencies and mental illness.

The court declined to issue a final judgment immediately, raising concerns that the mother's litigation guardian failed to appropriately protect her interests.

The court requested submissions from the father on whether the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee should be appointed to represent the mother before proceeding further.

The applicant moved to change a child and spousal support order following his termination for cause from his position as CEO of Redknee.

He claimed a catastrophic change in circumstances due to his job loss and the forced sale of his shares to meet margin calls.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the original order required his income to drop below $465,000 for two consecutive years before a review.

The court also found the applicant failed to prove a material change not contemplated by the original order, noting his lack of disclosure, failure to mitigate, and prioritization of his second family's expenses over his support obligations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to amend a 2014 default judgment against the defendant Grocery Dayton to make the defendant Wakefern Food Corporation liable for the judgment.

This was the second time the plaintiffs brought this motion; the first was dismissed and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Wakefern raised a preliminary objection of res judicata.

The court found that the motion sought the same relief as the previous motion and that the new evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs could have been discovered with due diligence or did not constitute an admission.

The court dismissed the motion based on the doctrine of res judicata.