L. Bale

The children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking extended society care and significantly reduced access for three children.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding disposition, as the mother remained homeless and unable to provide stable care, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, noting the children's strong bond with their mother.

Using its expanded fact-finding powers, the court made a final order granting more frequent access than the society proposed, tailored to each child's specific needs and views.

The Society brought a status review application regarding a young child who had been in interim society care.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care, while the Society, the father, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported placement with the paternal grandparents.

The court found that the child continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing issues with intimate partner violence, adult conflict, mental health, and poor decision-making, including involvement in a serious car accident.

The court concluded that the mother could not provide a stable and safe environment and ordered the child placed in the care of the paternal grandparents under a six-month supervision order, with specified access for both parents.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached multiple terms of a final consent order, specifically regarding his failure to engage in parenting coordination and his attendance at the children's school sporting events.

The court found the father breached the order by failing to participate in parenting coordination and ordered him to retain a coordinator and pay costs thrown away.

However, the court dismissed the allegations regarding his attendance at school sporting events, finding the order permitted his attendance and the provision excluding extended family members was unenforceable.

The respondent mother brought an ex parte motion under the Children's Law Reform Act seeking an order to enforce a final parenting order from the Supreme Court of India, which had previously been recognized by the Ontario court.

The applicant father had failed to return the child to India and had subsequently obtained an ex parte emergency protection order in Illinois granting him physical care of the child.

The court dismissed the mother's ex parte motion, finding it inappropriate to conduct a best interests analysis to choose between conflicting foreign orders without notice to the father.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the mother returning to court after her pending motions in Illinois were determined or upon providing notice to the father.

The applicant mother and respondent father each brought motions following a case conference.

The respondent sought to set aside a procedural order granting the applicant leave to bring substantive motions, arguing inadequate notice.

The applicant sought interim child support, spousal support, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding he had adequate notice of the case conference and the court had jurisdiction to make procedural orders.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to pay interim Table child support of $1,769 per month, 70% of orthodontic expenses, and interim spousal support of $2,500 per month, which was adjusted downwards to account for the respondent's ongoing payment of the joint mortgage.

The applicant mother sought to vary a final joint custody order to grant her sole decision-making authority and reduce the respondent father's parenting time, citing ongoing conflict and communication issues.

The court dismissed the request for sole decision-making, finding that the conflict was largely driven by the mother's own unreasonable conduct and failure to adhere to the spirit of the existing order.

However, the court found a material change in circumstances regarding the regular parenting schedule due to the children's evolving views and the logistical issues causing conflict.

The court modified the schedule to reduce transitions and ordered an equal division of holiday time, including a week-about summer schedule.

The court also addressed extracurricular activities, child support, and the treatment of the children's RESP and bank accounts.

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion to change a 2013 final order for spousal support, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase, reinstatement of medical benefits, and additional life insurance/pension security.

She argued a material change in circumstances based on her increased medical needs and the payor's increased post-separation income.

The court found no compensatory basis to share in the payor's post-separation income increases and no evidence of increased medical expenses.

However, the court held that the eroding effect of inflation on the recipient's fixed income constituted a material change.

The court ordered the spousal support to be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index, retroactive only to the date of effective notice in May 2019.

All other claims were dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the court held a focused hearing to determine whether three children were First Nations, Inuk or Métis children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the two older children were First Nations children based on their own self-identification and ancestral connection through their father.

The youngest child, who had a different father and no paternal Indigenous ancestry, was also found to be a First Nations child based on her sibling relationship with the older children, despite the court's concerns regarding the mother's standalone claim of Indigenous identity.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application regarding a six-year-old Indigenous child due to the mother's severe and ongoing alcohol abuse.

The child had been residing with the maternal grandmother under a voluntary safety plan.

The Society and the father sought to have the child placed in the father's care, while the mother sought to have the child remain with the maternal grandmother under a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection and determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child prior to intervention.

However, returning the child to the mother was unsafe.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the custody of the father, who offered long-term stability and supported the child's Indigenous heritage.

A final custody order was granted to the father, with supervised parenting time for the mother and contact time for the maternal grandmother.

The payor brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a Final Default Order that fixed his spousal support arrears at over $480,000 and ordered incarceration in the event of future default.

The payor argued he did not receive adequate notice of the remote default hearing and was unable to attend due to age and health concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms factors and found that the payor had received adequate notice, simply chose to ignore the proceeding, and failed to establish an arguable case on the merits regarding his inability to pay.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the production of expert business valuation and income reports, and for an order requiring the respondent husband to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support.

The parties had signed a marriage contract in 1991 waiving property and spousal support rights.

The court held that to order cost-prohibitive expert reports, the applicant must show it is more likely than not the contract will be set aside or overridden.

The court dismissed the request for business valuations, finding it equally possible the property provisions would be upheld.

However, the court ordered the production of an income report, finding it likely the spousal support waiver would be overridden under a Miglin analysis.

The request for life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence on insurability, but alternative security was ordered.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict 12-day trial regarding parenting issues for their six-year-old child.

The father sought unsupervised access, the termination of a restraining order, and an order that the child be immunized.

The mother opposed, alleging domestic violence and seeking to maintain supervised access and her decision not to vaccinate.

The court found the mother had exaggerated and fabricated allegations of abuse and alienated the child from the father.

The court ordered a graduated schedule of unsupervised access for the father, terminated the restraining order, and ordered the mother to commence the routine immunization schedule for the child.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order that the children attend in-person school or, alternatively, that he be granted equal parenting time to assist with their remote learning.

The applicant mother, who had de facto and legal custody, had enrolled the children in remote learning due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and one child's history of asthma.

The court found no compelling evidence that the mother's decision was contrary to the children's best interests and declined to interfere with her decision-making authority.

The father's alternative request for equal parenting time was also dismissed, as a change in the learning platform did not justify altering the long-standing parenting regime.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The applicant wife sought a divorce and ongoing spousal support, while the respondent husband sought to terminate spousal support and child support for their two adult children.

The court found that the wife had been fully compensated for economic disadvantages arising from the marriage and had made no conscientious effort to become self-sufficient despite receiving support for over 20 years.

Spousal support was terminated.

Child support for the older child was terminated retroactively to the completion of her undergraduate degree, while child support for the younger child was reinstated to allow him to complete his college studies.

The court declined to order a retroactive repayment of child support to the husband to avoid undue hardship.

The applicant father brought a motion for a Christmas holiday access schedule for the parties' 10-year-old child.

The self-represented respondent mother requested an adjournment to retain counsel and asked that her partner be permitted to act as her agent.

The court denied both preliminary requests, noting the time-sensitive nature of the motion, the mother's failure to respond to prior communications, and the partner's inappropriate conduct and potential role as a witness.

On the substantive issue, the court found that the father's proposed schedule, which provided an approximately equal division of holiday time and allowed the child to spend Christmas Eve and morning with the father for the first time since separation, was in the child's best interests.

The motion was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion to permit day-to-day parenting decisions, including enrolling the child in after-school care, without the respondent mother's consent.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking a right of first refusal, final decision-making, counselling for the child, a change in access exchange location, updated child support, and other procedural relief.

The court granted the father's request regarding day-to-day decisions and after-school care, finding it a practical solution given his criminal release conditions preventing contact with the mother.

The court dismissed the mother's requests for a right of first refusal, final decision-making, counselling, and changing the exchange location, citing the high-conflict nature of the case and lack of material change.

The court ordered updated child support based on the father's projected income and deferred questioning until after his criminal trial.

The mother brought an uncontested motion to change a 2012 final order regarding child support.

The father had failed to disclose his increased income since obtaining full-time employment in 2013 and refused to contribute to section 7 expenses.

The court imputed income to the father due to his failure to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered retroactive child support of $41,777 dating back to January 1, 2013, increased prospective child support, and ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the children's section 7 expenses.

The moving party (respondent in the main action) brought a motion to set aside a final order for spousal support obtained in his absence at an uncontested trial.

He argued he was unaware of the proceedings and disputed the trial judge's findings regarding the length of cohabitation and his imputed income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party deliberately evaded service and ignored the court process to avoid paying spousal support.

The court also found no arguable case on the merits, as the evidence supported a 21-year spousal relationship and the imputed income was appropriate based on his past earnings.