Lauren M. Conti

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking shared parenting time and a corresponding adjustment to child support.

The respondent mother brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the motion to change, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the aging and maturing of the child, coupled with increased conflict between the parties, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the best interests of the child and child support arrears.

An order was granted for the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the views and preferences of the child.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's affidavits filed in response to her motion for relocation and his motion to change.

The applicant argued the materials contained irrelevant information, hearsay, and details of settlement negotiations.

The court struck the affidavit of the respondent's counsel's staff member, limiting its use solely to an upcoming WAGG motion.

The court also struck numerous paragraphs and exhibits from the respondent's own affidavit, finding they improperly disclosed criminal disclosure subject to a WAGG motion and irrelevant settlement negotiations leading up to a prior consent final order.

The applicant moved for summary judgment for ongoing child and spousal support, as well as arrears.

The parties had a traditional marriage where the applicant stayed home to raise the children, allowing the respondent to advance his career.

The respondent failed to provide income disclosure since 2021 and did not respond to the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, ordering the respondent to pay child support arrears, section 7 expense arrears, and spousal support arrears, while imputing minimum wage income to the applicant.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's last disclosed income, finding the applicant entitled to compensatory and needs-based support.

The case involves a dispute over decision-making responsibility and parenting time for a child, Anna, following the separation of her birth mother (Respondent) and her former spouse (Applicant).

The primary issue was the Respondent's desire to relocate the child from Fort Frances, Ontario, to Saskatchewan.

The court considered the child's best interests, including stability, existing relationships, history of care, and the impact of relocation.

The court found that relocation would be detrimental to the child and granted the Applicant sole decision-making responsibility, with the child to reside primarily with the Applicant in Fort Frances.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment to restrict the father's parenting time to be based solely on the children's views and preferences, and to finalize child support obligations.

The father had previously brought a motion to change seeking equal parenting time and alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) supported the mother's position, emphasizing the clear and consistent wishes of the teenage children not to have contact with their father.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the mother, dismissing the father's motion to change, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial given the extensive and credible evidence from the OCL clinicians regarding the children's wishes.

The mother brought a motion to determine the school enrollment of the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought enrollment in a French Immersion program, while the father, who had unilaterally enrolled the child in an English program contrary to a prior order requiring joint decision-making, sought to maintain the English enrollment.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to have the opportunity to master French, noting the child's French-Canadian heritage and the benefits of bilingualism.

The court ordered the child to be enrolled in the French Immersion school and directed that both parents, the father's grandmother, and the mother's partner be listed as emergency contacts.

The applicant was successful on a motion to relocate with the parties' children and sought costs of $7,000.00.

The respondent argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $1,500.00, citing the financial impact on his ability to exercise parenting time.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive, disallowed fees for 'advising counsel', and reduced the preparation time.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,144.00 plus HST.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary child support from the respondent step-mother.

The parties had signed a separation agreement two years post-separation wherein the applicant acknowledged the respondent had no obligation to support his children.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as her own, and the clear terms of the separation agreement, the court found no prima facie case for temporary relief.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue left for the imminent trial.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

The applicants, foster parents of an Indigenous child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their care.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the child's First Nation had proposed the removal as an exercise of its inherent authority and customary care, and that the society was merely acting as a resource.

The Board held that under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, only a society has the statutory authority to remove a child from a foster home, and the First Nation does not have this authority.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to review the proposed removal and directed that a hearing on the merits be scheduled.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following motions concerning child relocation, custody, and access.

The Mother sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Father's conduct was unreasonable.

The court found the Mother was the successful party on the primary issue of relocation, but noted divided success on other issues, particularly access.

Considering the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of both parties' behaviour, and the offers to settle, the court fixed costs at $2,000, a substantial reduction from the Mother's claim.

The Mother's request to enforce the costs award as child support was denied, as the costs were not related to support or maintenance under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

Following a motion addressing interim child support, interim spousal support, and interim access, the court issued a decision solely on costs.

The applicant had been successful in obtaining interim spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the complexity of the motion, counsel time, settlement conduct, and proportionality.

Although the successful party sought $4,000 in costs, the court found the claim excessive for a relatively straightforward interim support motion.

Costs were reduced to an amount considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

On an interlocutory motion in a family law proceeding, the moving party sought an order permitting the sale of jointly owned matrimonial property consisting of the matrimonial home and an adjoining parcel of land.

The responding party opposed the immediate sale and sought to preserve the opportunity at trial to obtain a vesting order transferring the other spouse’s interest in satisfaction of an anticipated equalization payment under s. 9(1)(d)(i) of the Family Law Act.

The court held that although a joint owner normally has a prima facie right to sale, when the property is a matrimonial home the moving party must demonstrate that the other spouse’s refusal is unreasonable.

In this case both parties ultimately contemplated sale, but disagreed as to timing and process.

The court permitted the sale to proceed subject to structured terms designed to allow the responding party an opportunity to purchase the property before listing and to ensure fair market value.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support and spousal support following separation after a marriage of approximately seven years, while the respondent sought interim access.

The parties resolved interim child support and access by agreement, leaving only interim spousal support for determination.

The court considered the parties’ respective incomes, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the respondent’s obligations to children in a new household.

Applying the principles from Fisher v. Fisher regarding responsibilities to second families, the court held that voluntarily assumed obligations toward a new partner and her children should not reduce the payor’s spousal support obligations to the first family, although the respondent’s obligations to his own two additional children were relevant.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range in light of the respondent’s additional child obligations and travel costs associated with exercising access from a remote community.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and his union.

Following a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the union and consented to the union participating as an intervenor.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the union, amended the employer's name, and granted the union intervenor status.