Leanne E. Standryk

A family law trial involving two self-represented litigants concerning parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their child.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time and sole decision-making responsibility, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought suspension of parenting time, alleging the father's violence and erratic behaviour.

The parties had previously separated in 2018 and entered into a separation agreement in 2020 providing for joint decision-making and a four-week rotation parenting schedule.

A significant incident involving physical violence occurred in July 2024 in the child's presence, resulting in criminal charges against the father (later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond).

The court found that while both parents engaged in alienating behaviour, the father's absence from the child's life since September 2024 and the child's anxiety disorder precluded a shared parenting schedule at this time.

The court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with incremental reintroduction of parenting time facilitated by the paternal uncle, reconciliation counselling, and ongoing child support obligations.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall action for failure to provide notice within ten days as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued for an exception based on reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality.

The court found that the plaintiff could rely on a late-served expert report for the motion, but that the admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence was not established.

The court concluded that the conflicting expert evidence on the plaintiff’s capacity and reasonable excuse created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for reverse summary judgment were dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This is a costs decision following a contempt motion brought by the applicant to enforce paternal grandparent visits.

The court found that the applicant had proven contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised judicial discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, citing the applicant's failure to pursue other enforcement steps and the potential negative impact on the children.

The respondent was found in breach of the order, and child-centred relief was granted.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, while the respondent argued for costs in her favour on a partial indemnity basis, claiming success in defending the contempt.

The court determined that the applicant was largely successful in reestablishing visits and proving contempt, and neither party acted unreasonably to be deprived of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $18,459.84, reduced slightly due to the respondent's minor success in obtaining updated information about the applicant's therapy.

The applicants sought declarations that their removal as directors of the Niagara Regional Native Centre (NRNC) and the subsequent election of the individual respondents to the board in February 2023 were invalid due to governance irregularities and violations of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act and NRNC By-Laws.

The court found the February 2023 election and the applicants' removal and membership termination invalid due to lack of proper notice, voting irregularities, and failure to comply with statutory and by-law requirements.

While acknowledging the invalidity, the court declined to reinstate the applicants or invalidate all acts of the subsequent board, instead ordering the current October 2023 board to continue until a properly conducted election, with specific protocols for membership and voting.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for allegedly breaching a consent order concerning paternal grandparent visits with the children.

The court found that the respondent was in breach of the order, having failed to actively promote and facilitate the visits.

However, the court exercised its discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law, other remedies were available, and a contempt finding would not serve the children's best interests by escalating conflict.

Instead, the court issued new orders to facilitate grandparent visits, mandated mediation, and required the applicant to provide proof of completed therapy.