Lawrence Anthony Blokker

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The applicant sought costs after being largely successful on the primary issues, including the denial of the respondent's relocation request and the establishment of an equal parenting schedule, which aligned with the applicant's offer to settle.

The respondent argued for no costs, citing good faith in her relocation request, her consent to a week-about schedule if the child remained local, and her limited financial means.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable position on parenting time and her failure to engage in settlement discussions or provide a bill of costs as required by the Family Law Rules.

While acknowledging the respondent's financial constraints, the court balanced this with the applicant's settlement efforts and the respondent's conduct.

The court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in installments.

This family law trial addressed the respondent mother's request to relocate an 11-year-old child from L[...] to M[...], Ontario, and her associated requests for sole decision-making and primary residence.

The applicant father opposed the relocation, seeking to maintain the existing equal shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making.

The court found that the respondent mother failed to prove that the relocation was in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the child's stability, educational needs, and the unreasonableness of the proposed parenting plan given the parties' limited financial means.

The court also found no compelling reason to alter the joint decision-making regime.

Consequently, the existing shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making were ordered to continue, with the applicant paying set-off child support.

The respondent sought to retroactively vary child support and claim an overpayment due to a material change in circumstances (disability).

The court found no effective notice of the change prior to the formal motion.

Despite the agreed material change, the court exercised its discretion under the Colucci and D.B.S. factors, denying the retroactive reduction and repayment due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct, lack of disclosure, and the hardship it would cause the children and recipient.

The existing child support order was varied prospectively as agreed by the parties.

The applicant mother sought costs of $35,343.30 following a 13-day trial regarding a motion to change parenting and child support provisions.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs or pay a maximum of $10,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issue of maintaining joint custody and the parenting schedule.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including divided success, the parties' behaviour, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $20,000 to the mother.

The applicant father sought sole custody and significant changes to the parenting schedule and child support, alleging the mother exposed children to conflict and was deficient in care.

The respondent mother sought minor adjustments to the existing joint custody order and child support.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the older child's changing wishes, parental communication breakdown, mother's exposure of children to domestic conflict, and father's actions undermining the mother-daughter relationship.

The court maintained joint custody and the existing 8-6 parenting schedule, with modifications to respect the older child's wishes for discretion, allow paternal grandparents to assist with school transport, and clarify arrangements when the father travels.

Child support was recalculated on a set-off basis, imputing income to the mother.

This trial decision addresses custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child.

Sole custody was granted to the respondent mother by agreement.

The court assessed the applicant father's parenting abilities, noting significant concerns regarding his judgment, living conditions, and inconsistent commitment to the child, particularly in light of his new relationship and the apprehension of his other child by child protective services.

The court ordered initial supervised access, transitioning to unsupervised access at the respondent's discretion, subject to strict conditions including a CAS inspection of the applicant's residence and prohibitions on leaving the child with the applicant's partner or transporting the child unsafely.

Child support was ordered in accordance with the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant sought an order permitting him to apply for and renew Canadian passports for the parties' two children without the respondent's consent.

The parties had divorced in Bahrain, and custody orders were in place from Bahrain and Qatar, where the applicant and children resided.

The Ontario court recognized the foreign divorce but found it lacked jurisdiction over custody ancillary to divorce under the Divorce Act.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, as the Qatari court declined to address Canadian passport issues.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to grant the order, citing their inability to travel, potential loss of health and education benefits, and the unreasonableness of the respondent's refusal.

The Children's Aid Society sought extended society care for two children against their father and mothers.

The mothers consented to extended society care.

The father opposed, seeking custody.

The court found both children in need of protection due to the father's pedohebephilia diagnosis, untreated impulsivity, chaotic lifestyle, substance use, and history of non-compliance with orders.

The court dismissed the father's plan of care, finding it unrealistic, and ordered extended society care for both children, with silent access for parents but continued inter-sibling access.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte interim custody order that had granted custody of his two children to their maternal uncle following the mother's suicide.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children had a strong bond with their father and expressed a clear preference to live with him.

Despite the uncle providing a stable home and the father having a dated criminal record, the court concluded that reuniting the children with their natural parent was in their best interests.

The motion was granted, and interim custody was awarded to the father.

The applicant sought approval of minutes of settlement providing for joint custody and unsupervised access through a consent order submitted by basket motion.

The court refused to approve the proposed order due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the respondent qualified as a “parent” under Rule 35.1 of the Family Law Rules and because required police record checks and Children’s Aid Society reports had not been filed as required by ss. 21.1 and 21.2 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The record disclosed prior criminal and child protection concerns involving the respondent, including a sexual assault conviction and CAS involvement with another child.

The court held that adequate disclosure is required before approving consent custody orders, even where parties agree.

The motion was stayed pending the filing of further affidavits, police record checks, CAS reports, and additional explanations regarding criminal history and child protection involvement.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered competing motions regarding temporary care and custody of a young child pending determination of the protection application.

The evidence consisted largely of conflicting affidavit evidence concerning allegations of domestic violence between the parents and related criminal proceedings.

Applying s. 51 of the Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the child faced a probable risk of harm if protective conditions were not imposed.

The court determined the child could be adequately protected by remaining in the mother’s care under the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society.

A structured access schedule for the father, including exchanges through the Society’s access exchange program, was ordered.

The responding party brought a motion seeking temporary child support, contribution to special expenses under s. 7 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, and temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the payor under s. 19(1) of the Guidelines given evidence of assets, inconsistent financial disclosure, and claimed business downturn.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought but imputed income of $72,000 based on the payor’s budget, asset holdings, and limited financial disclosure.

Temporary child support, spousal support, and contribution to special expenses were ordered retroactive to October 1, 2012.