L.E. Fryer

The parties, who separated in 2010, have been engaged in high-conflict litigation for over a decade.

The father brought a motion to change seeking sole decision-making and shared parenting time, alleging the mother was engaging in parental alienation and failing to address the children's therapeutic and educational needs.

The mother sought to retain sole decision-making and suspend the father's parenting time based on the children's stated preferences not to see him following a mental health crisis involving the older child.

The court found the mother in contempt for failing to facilitate parenting time but declined to force the 15-year-old child to attend visits.

The court ordered the 13-year-old child to attend reunification therapy with the father.

The court also imputed income to the mother for the purpose of sharing special and extraordinary expenses, finding her intentionally under-employed.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial over custody and access of their two children.

The father alleged the mother was engaging in parental alienation and sought to have the children removed from her care.

A section 30 assessment found 'hybrid alienation', noting the mother contributed to the children's extreme rejection of the father, but also that the father's own rigid and obsessive behaviour played a significant role.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding it was not in the children's best interests to be removed from her care.

The father was granted supervised access and the parties were ordered to participate in reintegration therapy at the father's primary expense.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses for two children.

The respondent father, who was self-employed, had failed to provide timely financial disclosure and his income had significantly increased in recent years.

The court found no blameworthy conduct to justify a retroactive variation prior to November 2016, but imputed the father's income for 2016 onwards.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive table support, ongoing table support for one child, and his proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses, including clothing for a child with special needs residing in a treatment centre.

The self-represented applicant mother sought costs of $160,872 after successfully obtaining an order permitting her to move with the child to New York.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, had made a reasonable offer to settle, and had behaved more reasonably than the respondent.

Applying the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, the court set an hourly rate of $100 for the applicant's time and awarded her $22,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party (father) brought a motion to set aside an uncontested trial judgment that ordered him to pay significant retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income.

The moving party had failed to attend the first day of trial because he chose to attend his first day of a new job, relying on incorrect advice from a paralegal that an agent could secure an adjournment.

The court found this was a satisfactory reason under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the principles for self-represented litigants and the primary objective of the rules, the court set aside the judgment in its entirety to allow the issues of income and retroactive support to be determined on their merits.

Following a trial and an initial costs decision, the party seeking costs sought additional costs for preparing her costs submissions, relying on an offer to settle costs that the opposing party did not accept.

The court found that the offer to settle costs was reasonable and fell within the scope of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the party seeking costs additional costs of $3,500 plus HST to bring her recovery for the costs submissions closer to full recovery.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought permission to relocate with the child to New York to join her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move, seeking joint custody and increased parenting time, citing concerns about the child's heart condition and the impact on his relationship with the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh best interests analysis.

Noting the chronic high conflict between the parents and the father's history of undermining the mother's custodial authority, the court concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's sole custody and permitted the relocation.

A detailed access schedule and child support obligations were ordered.

The respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's counsel as solicitor of record, arguing that she had previously acted as collaborative counsel and was therefore prohibited from litigating the matter.

The court noted that while the counsel had acted in a collaborative capacity, she had never signed a new collaborative participation agreement after taking over the file.

Applying the high standard required to interfere with a party's choice of counsel, the court declined to remove the solicitor of record, though it noted she should have considered stepping aside voluntarily.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Following a 12-day family law trial primarily focused on the children's estrangement from the applicant father and the respondent mother's mobility claim to Arizona, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success on the parenting issues was divided, as the father did not achieve a custody reversal and the mother was not permitted to move.

Neither party was found to have acted in bad faith or to be markedly more reasonable on the parenting issues, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion.

However, the mother was more successful and reasonable regarding the financial issues, particularly the valuation of the father's professional building.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST for the financial issues.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The children resided primarily with the mother and became estranged from the father.

The father sought a 90-day custody reversal to repair the relationship, alleging parental alienation, while the mother sought to relocate with the children to Arizona.

The court found the children were unjustifiably rejecting the father and that the mother had failed to facilitate their relationship.

The court denied the custody reversal but ordered joint custody with a strict access schedule for the father, and denied the mother's mobility application.

The court also resolved financial issues, valuing the father's professional building at $600,000 and ordering him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.

The parents opposed the motion and sought the child’s return to their care under supervision, arguing that factual disputes required a full trial.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child’s serious prior neglect, extensive parental history of child protection involvement, missed access visits, and inability to address the child’s special needs.

Applying the best‑interests factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded that permanency planning was required and that Crown wardship was appropriate.

The court further held that the parents failed to establish that access would be meaningful and beneficial to the child or that it would not impair adoption prospects.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.

The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.