Ladan Korhani

The father (K.C-P.) brought a motion to change the child's placement from temporary joint care with non-biological paternal grandparents (the S's) to his sole care, supported by the paternal grandmother.

The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (FNIM Act), emphasizing the priority of placement with an Indigenous parent for an Indigenous child.

Despite the S's providing good care, the court found it was in the child's best interests, particularly given her Indigenous heritage, to be placed with her father, with a transitional period.

The motion was granted, and the S's request for costs was denied.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the applicant successfully sought an order for the child to reside with him during the school week due to the respondent's failure to ensure school attendance.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, having made multiple offers to settle that were met or beaten.

The respondent opposed costs, citing financial hardship and medical reasons for unemployment.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable, particularly her prioritization of parenting time over the child's education and her inappropriate use of dated mental health allegations.

Applying Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, the court awarded the applicant $17,299.51 in all-inclusive costs, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness.

The Applicant Father (AF) brought a motion to enforce an alleged agreement reached through counsel to temporarily vary a child support order to $500 per month, retroactive to March 1, 2020.

The Respondent Mother (RM) opposed, arguing no agreement was reached and seeking to impute income to the AF.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement enforcement, finding a valid temporary "without prejudice" agreement was indeed reached.

The AF's motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

The court then addressed costs, significantly reducing the amount payable by the RM due to her circumstances, the children's best interests, and the death of her previous counsel.

The respondent mother brought a motion for the immediate return of her child, Brianne, to a long-standing week-about time-sharing arrangement, as per a final consent order.

The applicant father resisted, alleging abuse by the mother and citing Brianne's stated wishes to remain with him, including threats of self-harm or running away.

The court found no material change in circumstances since the final order and no sufficiently compelling circumstances to warrant an interim change.

The judge expressed concerns about the father's credibility regarding the alleged abuse and his failure to enforce the existing court order, emphasizing a custodial parent's positive obligation to ensure a child complies with access orders.

The mother's motion was allowed, and the father's counter-motion for a change in access was dismissed, with a transition schedule established for Brianne's return to shared care.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (Society) sought a temporary order for the respondent father, J.M., to have supervised access to the child, J., twice weekly.

The respondent mother, C.F., opposed this, requesting access be deferred until Society offices reopened and then be supervised by two CAS workers, specifically excluding family members or friends.

The father consented to the Society's motion but requested an additional term regarding future access discretion.

The court found that the COVID-19 closure of CAS facilities constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying a contextual analysis, the court determined that the Society's proposal for supervision by approved paternal aunts, remotely monitored by a FIT worker, sufficiently mitigated the risk of harm to the child and promoted the child's best interests, protection, and well-being.

The Society's motion was granted, and the mother's motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought contempt and enforcement orders against the respondent for multiple breaches of a final parenting order, including travel without consent, denial of telephone and in-person access, and involving children in parental disputes.

The respondent cross-moved to reduce the applicant's access and for other interventions, alleging the children's resistance due to the applicant's temperament.

The court found the respondent in contempt for wilfully and deliberately breaching several provisions of the order, emphasizing her failure to actively promote access and her role in sabotaging the parenting schedule.

The respondent's motion to vary was dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the order, attend a parenting course with the applicant, and pay half the cost of a prior counselling session.

The mother brought a motion to change the child support order of June 18, 2010, and the father brought a cross-motion for arrears and section 7 expenses.

The parties had two children; as of March 1, 2015, one child began residing with the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined child support obligations on a set-off basis.

The central issue was the income to be attributed to each parent.

The court imputed income to the father based on his incomplete financial disclosure and negative inferences regarding his capacity to earn, while accepting the mother's actual income for the relevant periods.