Janet Patricia Daby

The court released its costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The applicant mother, who was the successful party at trial, sought costs of $8,092.

The respondent father did not make submissions.

The court reviewed general costs principles and the application of Rule 18(14) regarding offers to settle, finding the mother's offer did not meet the technical requirements for enhanced costs.

Considering factors under Rule 24(12), including the parties' conduct and the father's unreasonable positions on support, the court awarded the mother $6,000 in costs, payable in installments.

The case concerned the mother's claim for retroactive child support for two children.

The court applied the Colucci framework for original applications for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date was December 1, 2021.

The court departed from this date, setting support to begin October 1, 2021, due to the father's blameworthy conduct (failure to disclose income, underpayment) and the mother's understandable delay.

The father was ordered to pay $36,066 in arrears and ongoing child support of $1,194 per month.

The father brought parenting motions, including a restraining order against the mother's counsel and an order to remove her.

The court dismissed the father's motions and granted the mother's, ordering supervised parenting time for the father.

The father subsequently brought two unsuccessful Form 14B motions.

This endorsement addresses the mother's request for full recovery costs, alleging bad faith by the father.

The court found the father acted in bad faith regarding his allegations against the mother's counsel and awarded full recovery costs for that specific issue, and additional costs for the other motions, totaling $10,000.

The court also considered the mother's offer to settle and the father's financial circumstances.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion without notice for custody of a child born in 2018, seeking a restraining order and police enforcement.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion should not have been commenced as an urgent motion and that proper case management procedures should have been followed.

However, rather than dismiss the motion, the court treated it as a temporary motion on custody and access.

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with the child residing with the mother on alternate weekends and Tuesdays, and with the father for the remaining time.

The court found that both parents were significantly involved in the child's care and that the best interests of the child required continued contact with both parents.

A motion for summary judgment in a child protection status review application seeking to make a child a crown ward.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with supervised access to the parents.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care or unsupervised access.

The child had been in care since 2012 due to neglect and had experienced multiple placement breakdowns.

The child had significant behavioral, emotional, and developmental challenges requiring specialized care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted crown wardship with weekly supervised access to both parents.

The court also addressed sibling access issues and made reciprocal access orders to preserve the child's voice in future adoption proceedings.

A motion by the father for unsupervised access to his two young sons on a gradually increasing schedule was opposed by the Children's Aid Society, which sought to reduce his current supervised bi-weekly access to once every two months.

The court considered the father's significant mental health history, including schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, his recent stabilization following an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board in December 2014, and the quality of his interactions with the children during supervised visits.

The court found that while maintaining contact with the father and paternal family was in the children's best interests, the father had not demonstrated the ability to meet the children's needs without supervision and had not shown meaningful improvement in parenting skills over 22 months of supervised access.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support and access order granted in 2007.

The respondent father sought relief for alleged daycare overpayment, joint custody, expanded access, reduced child support, and travel restrictions.

The court increased child support based on the respondent's 2011 income, rejected the joint custody request due to lack of trust and communication between parties, maintained overnight access with enhanced supervision and reporting requirements following an incident of injury to the child, and imposed detailed access terms including travel provisions and expense documentation requirements.