Lauren Israel

A custody and access trial involving a 13-year-old child, Tamari McLeod, born to unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody and child support; the father sought sole custody.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the father's position based on the child's consistent, strong, and independent wishes to reside primarily with her father.

The court found that while both parents were capable of meeting the child's needs, the child's clear preferences, combined with the father's more stable parenting style and the mother's use of physical discipline and yelling, warranted granting primary custody to the father.

The court also addressed child support arrears and prospective support obligations.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for child support, spousal support, and a temporary restraining order against the respondent father.

The parties were first cousins married in Pakistan in 2005.

The father moved to Canada shortly after the marriage while the mother remained in Pakistan with their child born in 2007.

The father sponsored the mother and child to Canada in February 2015, and they separated in June 2015.

The key issues were the father's income for support purposes, the mother's entitlement to temporary spousal support, the amount of such support, the start date, and whether a restraining order should be granted.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his income unreliable and imputed income at $53,300 per annum based on employment records and rental income.

The court granted temporary child support of $482 per month and temporary spousal support of $1,150 per month, both retroactive to June 15, 2015.

The court also granted a temporary restraining order based on findings of domestic violence and harassment.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her appeal from a Crown wardship order regarding three of her children.

She argued the children should be placed with their maternal grandmother, that she received inadequate representation at trial, and that the respondent society failed to investigate the grandmother as a placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the inadequate representation claim and agreeing with the trial judge's concerns about the grandmother's suitability given her own child protection history.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary spousal support and was awarded $900 per month effective January 1, 2015, though she had requested $1,634 per month.

The respondent (father) opposed the motion and failed to make an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the mother successful in obtaining support but unsuccessful in her attempt to impute additional income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000, payable at $250 per month, considering the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the father's limited financial circumstances.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support of $1,698 per month from the father, effective January 1, 2015.

The father argued he had no ability to pay.

The court found the mother had strong compensatory and non-compensatory claims based on a traditional 17-year marriage and significant income disparity.

While acknowledging the father's substantial child support obligations and therapeutic expenses for the children in care of child protective services, the court determined these did not eliminate his spousal support obligations.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $900 per month, representing approximately 40% of the parties' net disposable income after accounting for child support payments and additional child-related expenses.

A motion for temporary care and custody of three young children apprehended by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The father sought placement of the children in his care, while the society sought to maintain temporary custody.

The court found that despite the father's efforts and family support, the children could not be adequately protected in his sole care due to longstanding concerns regarding domestic violence, inadequate home conditions, failure to meet developmental needs, poor school attendance, inability to arrange appropriate services, and the parents' intellectual limitations.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with supervised access to both parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of an infant (A.S.) under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society relied on a SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) report indicating suspected inflicted injuries, including a lip laceration and rib fracture.

The parents opposed the motion and sought return of the child to their care.

The court found that the society failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm in the parents' care.

The court emphasized that the SCAN opinion, while one piece of evidence, could not be the sole basis for the society's belief about risk.

The court found the parents to be credible, caring, and cooperative, with no evidence of abuse or neglect.

The motion was dismissed and the child was ordered returned to the parents' care.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking permission for three children in its care to travel to Jamaica for an extended access visit with their paternal grandmother, with the intention of assessing the viability of a permanent placement arrangement.

The mother supported the motion, but the Office of the Children's Lawyer (representing the oldest child), the biological father of the oldest child, and the maternal grandmother opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed Jamaica plan was not in the best interests of the children.

The court identified numerous obstacles, including concerns about the father's involvement and his relationship with the mother (whom the society deemed unsuitable), the grandmother's limited financial resources and passive demeanor, the absence of meaningful relationships between the children and the proposed caregivers, and significant jurisdictional and enforcement complications arising from placing the children in a foreign country.

This is a costs decision following a trial of motions to change custody and support.

The mother was successful in obtaining sole custody of the parties' eight-year-old child, securing her preferred access arrangement, and obtaining retroactive child support.

The father's requests for expanded decision-making authority and more extensive access were dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the successful party, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, including the parties' conduct, the failure to make settlement offers, and the reasonableness of legal fees and time spent.

Both parents brought motions to change a 2006 custody and access order.

The father sought expanded access, decision-making authority over extracurricular activities and Tamil classes, and elimination of the primary residence provision.

The mother sought sole custody, modified access terms, and retroactive child support from August 1, 2008.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the father's controlling and inappropriate behavior toward the mother and child following the mother's relationship with her boyfriend.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, modified access to provide the father with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits, and ordered retroactive child support from September 1, 2009, with arrears of $14,221.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father, retroactive to January 2009.

The parties were married in 1985 and separated in May 2008.

The father had custody of two of their four children and was paying down substantial matrimonial debt through a Consumer Proposal.

The mother had a sporadic employment history and was receiving social assistance.

The court found that while the mother satisfied the threshold for entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and need-based grounds, the father's ongoing child support obligations and lack of ability to pay rendered him unable to provide spousal support.

The mother's claim was dismissed entirely, including the retroactive claim, due to her blameworthy delays in complying with disclosure orders.

A children's aid society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking an order to compel a hospital to produce clinical records and reports regarding a 16-year-old child in protection proceedings.

The child had disclosed allegations of sexual abuse facilitated by her mother and was placed in society care.

The society sought the records to facilitate treatment planning.

The child opposed the motion, indicating she would consent to direct release to her treatment providers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the society had not met the low threshold of establishing relevance, particularly where the records were sought for treatment facilitation rather than investigation of protection concerns, and where the child's privacy interests and therapeutic needs could be adequately addressed through alternative means.

Consolidated child protection trial involving three children (S.J., N.J., and D.J.) where the Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The father had a history of violence and anger management issues, including a guilty plea to assaulting two of the children with a belt.

The mother was passive and failed to protect the children from the father's emotional and physical abuse.

Despite both parents' participation in parenting programs, the court found they had made little progress and posed ongoing risks to the children's safety and wellbeing.

The court ordered all three children to be made Crown wards without access for adoption.

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to file her Answer/Plan of Care to an amended status review application.

The child had been out of the mother's care for over 19 months and was thriving in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother had missed the filing deadline and had not seen the child for over five months.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to present a realistic plan of care or establish that granting the extension was in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's need for permanency.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and dispensing with his signature to facilitate a prior order.

At the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment to adduce fresh evidence, which the Court of Appeal refused.

The Court found no error in the motion judge's refusal to stay the prior order or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.