Alison Southern

Following a motion to change parenting provisions and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $28,747.49, arguing she was successful on both issues and the father behaved unreasonably.

The father sought full recovery costs of $22,318.35, arguing he was the successful party overall and the mother acted unreasonably.

The court found success was divided, with the father more successful on parenting issues and the mother more successful on child support.

Finding that the vast majority of time and resources were spent on the parenting dispute, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $5,000 in costs, to be set-off against outstanding child support.

On a motion to change, the court addressed both parenting and support after a lengthy estrangement between the child and the father following the father's catastrophic brain injury.

Applying the variation and best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court accepted an assessment recommending that any relationship rebuilding proceed cautiously and only at the child’s discretion, supported by periodic child-appropriate videos reviewed with a mental health professional.

On child support, the court held that the original order was not under appeal, but the father's regained financial competency in 2016 and subsequent non-disclosure constituted a material change and blameworthy conduct justifying retroactive variation from June 1, 2016.

The court rejected including the full structured settlement as income, instead attributing 3.2% of it as income replacement, grossed up, together with SABS, CPP, rental income and modest imputed investment income, and directed further calculations to quantify arrears.

The court also modified the section 7 regime and ordered support security through estate charge, insurance inquiries, and an irrevocable direction respecting the guaranteed portion of the structured settlement.

Following a family law trial where the court found the applicant mother had alienated the children from the respondent father, the parties settled all outstanding issues except costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $110,000, arguing he was the successful party and the applicant acted unreasonably.

The applicant sought costs of up to $96,579, arguing she was more successful as the children remained in her primary care.

The court found the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and necessitated the trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Supplementary reasons for judgment regarding child support.

The court fixed the respondent father's child support arrears at $8,699.57, including contributions to section 7 expenses.

Ongoing basic child support was ordered at $256 per month based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court declined to order the father to pay life insurance premiums to secure support due to his modest financial means.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions to change a 2016 final order regarding parenting and child support for their nine-year-old son.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to high parental conflict and the child's expressed desire to spend more time with the father.

The court ordered a meaningful consultation process for major decisions with the mother retaining final decision-making authority, and increased the father's holiday and summer parenting time.

The court also imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding him voluntarily underemployed, but declined to order him to contribute to extracurricular activities due to his limited means.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for enforcement of a parenting agreement after the respondent father retained the child on two separate occasions for extended periods due to pandemic-related self-isolation.

The parties settled all issues except one: how to interpret and apply government health protocols during COVID-19.

The father sought an order requiring both parties to follow government protocols and communicate instances of illness or exposure.

The mother opposed this, arguing the father was using the pandemic in bad faith to manipulate the parenting schedule and that separation from her posed greater risk to the child's mental health than potential COVID-19 exposure.

The court found both parents to be loving and responsible but determined that government protocols must be followed.

The court adopted an approach requiring the parties to follow public health directives from Canada, Ontario, and Toronto, with provisions for medical evidence and make-up parenting time when self-isolation occurs.

The parties separated in 2016, after which the mother severely restricted the father's access to their two children.

The father sought sole custody and the imputation of income to the mother, alleging parental alienation and intentional underemployment.

The court found that the mother had alienated the children from the father and was intentionally underemployed by choosing to work only part-time night shifts.

The court imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the mother and ordered a temporary schedule of increased access for the father, deferring a final decision on custody for four months to monitor the mother's compliance and the progress of reunification counselling.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased interim access to the parties' two younger children.

The applicant mother opposed the increase but agreed to reunification counselling.

The court found evidence that the mother was negatively influencing the children against the father, supported by an OCL clinical investigation report.

The court ordered increased access, including separate access for the youngest child, and directed the parties to commence reunification counselling with costs shared proportionately to their incomes as a section 7 expense.

The applicants, paternal grandparents, brought a motion for disclosure of a suicide note written by their deceased son (the children's father) to the respondent mother.

They argued the note might reveal dynamics between the parents or the mother's state of mind, which they believed was relevant to their application for grandparent access.

The court reviewed the letter in camera and determined it was not relevant to the central issue of whether grandparent access was in the best interests of the children.

The motion for disclosure was dismissed.