Lauren Israel

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.

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.

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.

The respondent father brought two motions: one to enforce a final parenting order and another to change it, seeking the child's return to Toronto from Owen Sound and changes to primary residence and decision-making responsibility.

The applicant mother had unilaterally relocated the child and denied the father parenting time, citing unverified allegations against the paternal grandmother.

The court found the mother in serious breach of the final order and her relocation improper due to inadequate notice and lack of court authorization.

The court ordered the child's return to Toronto, finding it in the child's best interests, and reinstated the father's parenting time, including allowing contact with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for two young children.

The applicant mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support with imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found the father perpetrated family violence, was controlling, and lacked credibility regarding his finances.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, established a structured parenting time schedule for the father, and imputed income to the father for retroactive child support, citing his blameworthy conduct and failure to disclose financial information.

This case addresses motions within a child protection status review application concerning the temporary care and custody of a 7-year-old child.

Following the criminal charging of the maternal grandfather, who previously had custody, the mother and father each sought temporary care.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CCAS) proposed joint care.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' high conflict, rejected joint custody.

It ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, with significant access to the father, and mandated counseling for both parents to mitigate conflict.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto initiated a protection application and sought temporary care of a three-year-old child after the mother terminated a temporary care agreement.

The father and mother subsequently filed motions seeking care and custody of the child under a supervision order.

The court dismissed the mother's motion due to concerns regarding her ketamine use and the child's physical condition upon admission to society care, finding her responses lacked insight.

The court granted the father's motion, placing the child in his temporary care and custody subject to society supervision, as it was deemed the least disruptive placement consistent with the child's best interests and protection, and the father's home was assessed as suitable.

This trial addressed parenting arrangements and child support for the parties' two-year-old son.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary care, while the Respondent father sought the same.

The court found the mother to be a more credible witness, demonstrating greater responsibility in addressing the child's medical needs and showing positive steps towards stability.

Conversely, the father's credibility was undermined by contradictory evidence, a history of neglecting the child's medical care, and ongoing criminal charges, raising concerns about the child's safety and well-being in his care.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making authority for the child's health, education, and significant extra-curricular activities.

The father was awarded parenting time for three consecutive weekends per month and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The decision emphasized the paramountcy of the child's best interests, considering factors such as physical and emotional safety, stability, and parental cooperation, in accordance with the amended Children's Law Reform Act.

This temporary motion concerned parenting arrangements for 2.5-year-old twin boys.

The applicant, the paternal grandmother, sought primary residence, while the respondent maternal grandmother sought equal time.

The father is incarcerated and consented to the paternal grandmother caring for the children.

The maternal grandmother had unlawfully removed the children from the paternal grandmother's care.

The court validated irregular service on the maternal grandmother and found her allegations against the paternal grandmother to be untruthful.

Based on the children's best interests, the court ordered the children to remain in the primary care of the paternal grandmother, with the maternal grandmother having supervised contact, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a relationship with the maternal family while warning against future breaches.

This is a continuation of a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a 7-year-old child.

The court initially determined that the child should not be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, and adjourned the motion to allow the society to investigate concerns about the father's suitability as a caregiver.

Upon the matter's return, the society had completed its investigation and addressed the court's concerns.

The court found that the father's circumstances had sufficiently improved and that it was in the child's best interests to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding a seven-year-old child.

The society sought placement of the child with the father, subject to supervision, after issuing a protection application concerning the mother's mental health and ability to manage the child's behaviour.

The mother opposed placement with the father and sought to retain custody with supervision terms.

The father consented to placement with himself and proposed limited day access for the mother.

The court found that the society met its two-part test: establishing reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother, and that supervision terms alone were inadequate to protect the child.

The court placed the child in the temporary care of the father on a without prejudice basis, pending further investigation into concerns about the father's domestic violence history.

The court implemented a graduated access schedule for the mother, increasing from day visits to overnight visits as she stabilizes her mental health.