Lauren Israel

The society sought a temporary supervision order placing two children with their father and his current partner, on consent of the parents and the children's lawyer.

The court rejected the consent order, finding that the father's extensive history of intimate partner violence, unaddressed mental health issues, and current criminal charges posed an unacceptable risk to the children, who have profound special needs.

The court ordered the children into the temporary care and custody of the society, emphasizing its duty to ensure the safety and well-being of children as the paramount consideration.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother was charged criminally with assaulting one of the children.

Her criminal release conditions prohibited contact with the children except as supervised by the child protection agency.

The family court issued an endorsement highlighting that such restrictive bail conditions, without an exception for family court orders, effectively strip the family court of its jurisdiction to determine the children's best interests and stymie reunification efforts.

The court urged the criminal justice system to routinely include an exception allowing contact 'in accordance with a family court order'.

The society brought a status review application regarding a 10-year-old child with moderate to severe autism who had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother sought the child's return, arguing there were no ongoing protection concerns.

The court found that intervention remained necessary due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse, mental health issues, and inability to work cooperatively with the child's service providers.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the permanent care and custody of the maternal grandmother, who had established a comprehensive network of supports and under whose care the child was thriving.

The mother was granted specified in-person and virtual access.

In a parenting and child support trial concerning a young child, the court held that professionally supervised parenting time was necessary because the respondent parent’s volatility, family violence, mental health instability, and dysregulation created emotional and psychological safety risks for the child.

The court found the applicant parent had not consistently facilitated the child’s relationship with the respondent, but concluded that unsupervised parenting time would not presently be in the child’s best interests.

Monthly two-hour agency-supervised visits were ordered, together with strict no-direct-contact communication terms.

For child support, the court accepted the parties’ agreed imputed income for 2023 and 2025, declined to impute income for 2024 because of legitimate disability-related unemployability, fixed arrears at $1,516, and ordered repayment at 10% of ODSP income.

On a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on statutory findings, the finding that the child was in need of protection, and the permanent placement of the child with maternal grandparents.

The evidence established serious parental risk factors, including alleged intimate partner violence, the mother’s chronic drug use, and instability at the time of apprehension, while the child had been safely and stably placed with the maternal grandparents for most of his life.

Applying the cautious child-protection summary judgment framework under Rule 16 and the principles in Hryniak and Kawartha, the court held that a fair and just determination could be made on the written record.

The court granted a final s.102 custody order, made discretionary access for the mother, and denied the father’s request for expansive access and information rights, instead ordering limited supervised online and in-person access.

In this urgent family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking exclusive possession with the children residing with him on a week-about parenting schedule.

The court granted the applicant's motion for exclusive possession on an interim basis, finding that the applicant, as the primary caregiver throughout the marriage with no current income, was in a more vulnerable position than the respondent, who had greater financial resources and could obtain alternative accommodation.

The court also imposed an interim parenting schedule providing the respondent with access every two out of three weekends plus weeknight parenting time, finding that the children's best interests required maintaining their relationship with their father despite the separation.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion by Mohammed Duni seeking the return of his children from Orillia to Toronto, along with primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother, Ahlam Said, had relocated the children without notice, and the father argued this was an improper disruption of the children's habitual residence.

The court analyzed the best interests of the children under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including factors related to family violence, the impact of the father's delay in pursuing the motion, and the children's stability and routines.

The court declined to immediately change decision-making responsibility but ordered the children to remain in Orillia until the end of the school year, with increased parenting time for the father, and scheduled an expedited trial for a final determination.

On a motion to change final parenting-related orders, the moving party sought broader parenting time and revised travel terms, while the responding party sought to preserve most of the existing regime with her own modifications.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's autism diagnosis, the responding party's eight-month suspension of contact, and unilateral relocation attempts without notice or consent.

Applying the best-interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court varied the parenting schedule to increase the moving party's time in a structured way tied to the child's needs and the parties' communication history.

The court also imposed mutual written-consent requirements for out-of-Ontario travel, not to be unreasonably withheld, and consolidated the governing terms into one final order.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial where the applicant (mother) was awarded retroactive child support arrears of $18,086.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $6,864.75.

The court found the respondent (father) acted in bad faith by failing to provide financial disclosure and comply with previous orders.

Additionally, the mother's offer to settle, which was more favourable than the trial result, entitled her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother's full recovery costs, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate, and that the father could afford to pay.

The father brought a motion to change an existing child support order, seeking to terminate his obligation and obtain support from the mother.

The mother responded, seeking a retroactive increase in child support and dismissal of the father's claim for retroactive special expenses (section 7 expenses).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's increased income and his blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose it.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court ordered a retroactive increase in child support payable by the father from January 1, 2020, fixing arrears at $21,668 as of December 31, 2023.

The father's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was dismissed due to his blameworthy conduct, unilateral actions, and the unreasonableness of the expenses given the mother's financial circumstances.

The father's ongoing child support obligation was terminated, and the mother was ordered to pay temporary child support to the father, with the father's arrears to be set off against these payments.

The mother was also found entitled to her costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant (father) sought to increase his parenting time, but the court reduced it due to parenting concerns.

The respondent (mother) was the successful party and sought $8,000 in costs.

The court fixed costs at $5,000, payable in installments, emphasizing the father's unreasonable position on parenting time and the need to deter costly litigation.

This costs endorsement arose from a father's (D.S.) motion for travel consent for his child, which the mother (C.P.I.) initially withheld, forcing the father to bring a motion.

The mother eventually consented at the hearing.

The father sought $1,000 in costs.

The court reviewed the principles for costs in child protection cases, noting that while a high threshold for inter-parental costs generally applies, it is lowered when the dispute primarily resembles a domestic access issue rather than a challenge to the Children's Aid Society's intervention.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, for ignoring the father's requests and forcing him to incur legal costs.

The father was awarded the full $1,000 sought, payable in installments, despite the mother's limited income, to deter unreasonable behaviour and ensure compliance with court orders.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a status review application.

The court addressed the issue of whether a party from a previous status review application automatically remains a party in a new one.

The court determined that party status does not automatically roll over and that the maternal grandfather, who was a party in a prior proceeding, no longer met the statutory definition of a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, nor did he meet other criteria for party status or notice.

Relying on its inherent authority to control its own process, the court ordered the removal of the maternal grandfather as a party, finding it to be in the child's best interests and to prevent unnecessary delays and costs.

This case concerns a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a final custody order for the child, LN, to the father and stepmother, with supervised access for the mother.

The mother sought custody of the child for herself.

The court found a continuing need for a protection order due to the mother's untreated ketamine addiction, her inability to recognize and meet the child's needs, and her volatile behavior during visits.

The court determined that placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother was in the child's best interests, as the child had thrived in their consistent and structured care.

The mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father and stepmother were granted full control over the child's documents and travel.

This case concerns a child protection application regarding two children apprehended from their mother's care due to neglect.

The Children's Aid Society and the mother sought a supervision order for the children to return to the mother's care, while the father and paternal grandmother sought a permanent custody order in favour of the grandmother.

The court found that the mother had significantly addressed the initial protection concerns, engaged consistently with support services, and demonstrated improved parenting capacity and stable housing.

Conversely, the father and grandmother exhibited a lack of insight into risks posed by the father's criminal history and displayed persistent negative attitudes towards the mother, which could hinder the children's relationship with her.

The court ultimately determined that it was in the children's best interests to return to the mother's care under a six-month supervision order, with specified terms for access by the father and grandmother.

Following a trial regarding parenting arrangements and spousal support where the applicant mother was largely successful, she sought costs of $15,000.

The mother had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the respondent father than the trial result, triggering the full recovery costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the mother's costs claim to be reasonable and proportionate, noting the father's failure to provide his own bill of costs.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother's costs fixed at $15,000, payable in three instalments, and declined to order the costs paid directly to Legal Aid Ontario.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion to change parenting terms, the mother sought costs of $4,000 and an order requiring the father to obtain leave before bringing future motions.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, payable at $200 per month due to the father's limited means.

The court declined to order that the father requires leave for future motions, finding that his two unsuccessful motions did not constitute an abuse of process or delay.

The trial concerned parenting arrangements for the parties' 12-year-old daughter and the mother's claim for spousal support.

The mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making, and discretionary parenting time for the father, along with orders dispensing with the father's consent for documentation and travel.

The father sought joint decision-making, specified parenting time, and reunification therapy, and dismissal of the spousal support claim.

The court found significant family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and child, and that the child's views against contact were independent and justified.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, ordered the father's parenting time to be at the mother's discretion (considering the child's views), dispensed with the father's consent for documentation and travel, and ordered the father to pay spousal support.

The father's claims for joint decision-making and reunification therapy were dismissed.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $15,000 after a successful two-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The respondent (father) requested no costs or a fixed amount of $2,000.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party, despite some divided success on issues and her failure to make a parenting offer to settle.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to his failure to provide complete and timely financial disclosure, disregard of court orders, and attempts to intimidate the mother.

The court awarded the mother $11,521 in costs, payable by the father over three years, subject to his ongoing support and costs payments.

The court declined to order costs paid directly to Legal Aid Ontario, affirming that legally aided clients stand in the same position as other litigants regarding costs.

The respondent (father) sought costs for two successful motions: one to enforce parenting time and another to return the child to Toronto.

The applicant (mother) opposed, citing financial hardship and excessive claims.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and the mother's unreasonable conduct in withholding parenting time and unilaterally relocating the child.

While acknowledging the mother's impecuniosity, the court ordered her to pay $5,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments, emphasizing the need for immediate consequences for unreasonable litigation behaviour.