Lene Madsen

The respondent father sought an interim order to vary the access provisions of a final order due to criminal charges laid against him, including sexual assault and sexual interference involving children.

The applicant mother opposed the father's proposed terms, advocating for stricter, professionally supervised access.

The court found a material and exceptional change in circumstances warranting an interim variation under its parens patriae jurisdiction.

Balancing the seriousness of the unproven allegations against the father's lack of prior record and the child's need for contact, the court ordered supervised access by the father's wife, S.M., with specific conditions, rejecting the mother's request for professional supervision due to cost and the availability of an approved supervisor.

The applicant mother sought a sealing order, a publication ban, and permission to disclose a criminal bail hearing transcript to herself and the family court, following the respondent father's criminal charges.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, balancing the open court principle with the need to protect the child from harm and prevent circumvention of the criminal court's publication ban.

The court granted a publication ban and initialization of parties and the child, finding these measures sufficient to prevent identified risks without a full sealing order.

Permission was also granted for the redacted bail hearing transcript to be provided to the mother and filed with the court.

The applicant sought an order to reserve the determination of costs for a previous motion regarding daycare pick-up times until his leave to appeal that decision was complete.

He argued that assessing costs while a leave to appeal was pending would be prejudicial.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the Family Law Rules require prompt costs determinations and that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a stay pending appeal does not prevent the assessment of costs absent an unusual fact situation.

The maternal grandmother appealed an order granting the foster parent expanded rights of participation and disclosure in a focused hearing regarding the grandmother's access to the child, who had been made a Crown Ward.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge reasonably exercised her discretion and properly applied the relevant factors in determining that the foster parent's participation was in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment within a Status Review Application concerning the child S.M.A.A. The Society sought an order finding the child in need of protection, placing the child in the custody of the father, and granting the mother supervised access.

The mother did not file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The father consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the proposed placement.

The child was placed in the father's custody, and the mother was granted supervised access by a mutually agreeable third party, with location, frequency, and duration at the father's discretion.

The Applicant sought costs following a partially successful motion for disclosure from a non-party, Blue Water Metals.

The court found the Applicant more successful than Blue Water Metals, which had unreasonably resisted disclosure.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and counsel's rates, the court awarded the Applicant $7,000 in costs against Blue Water Metals.

No costs were ordered against the Respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

The applicant provided sperm to the respondent and her same-sex partner to conceive a child, with an oral understanding that the applicant would parent the child.

After conception, the respondent and her partner decided to keep the child.

The applicant sought a declaration of sole parentage and sole custody.

The court found the oral agreement did not meet the strict requirements for a valid surrogacy agreement under the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act.

However, using its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court declared the applicant, the respondent, and the respondent's partner to all be legal parents of the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent with a shared parenting schedule, and ordered the child's name to include names chosen by both the applicant and the respondent.

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The applicants, a child's great uncle and his partner, sought an order to dispense with the consent of the biological parents (respondents) for the adoption of the child.

The child had resided with the applicants for over three years, during which time the biological parents had minimal to no involvement.

The court granted the application, finding that dispensing with consent was in the child's best interests, considering the child's stable placement with the applicants and the lack of relationship with the biological parents.

The decision emphasized the strict "best interests" test for adoption, which is distinct from custody and access proceedings due to the final and irrevocable nature of adoption orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint custody, a modified access schedule, shared transportation, and police enforcement of access.

The applicant mother opposed the changes and sought a reduction in access due to the father's inconsistent attendance.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the breakdown of access.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother on consent, adjusted the access schedule to avoid Friday traffic, and ordered the father to remain responsible for transportation.

The requests for police enforcement, child support reduction, and sealing the file were dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody, primary residence, increased parenting time, and support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing support, and an irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designation.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order or to impute income to either party due to conflicting and insufficient evidence, reserving those issues for trial.

The court incrementally increased the father's parenting time to respect the maximum contact principle and ordered the father to pay temporary child and spousal support based on the parties' current actual incomes.

The trial addressed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and equalization issues.

The court determined that the applicant did not owe retroactive child support but owed retroactive spousal support of $51,238.

Ongoing child and spousal support were set based on the applicant's income of $153,449 and the respondent's imputed income of $25,000.

Spousal support was made subject to a material change of circumstances upon the applicant's actual retirement.

The court also addressed the imputation of income for the respondent and the add-back of certain business expenses for the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion for $30,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to fund a critique of the respondent father's income valuation and further litigation steps regarding child support.

The court applied the modified Okanagan test for family law cases.

While finding the applicant impecunious and that an award would level the playing field, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's income was higher than disclosed, and failed to provide evidence detailing how the requested funds would be utilized.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an unpaid equalization payment and sought a preliminary order that the respondent was not entitled to further relief due to his ongoing breach of a 2008 child support order.

The respondent had accumulated approximately $300,000 in child support arrears, claiming his obligation ended due to estrangement from the children, though he never sought to vary the order.

Applying the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the respondent's favour.

The court ordered that the respondent's motion be dismissed unless he pays the arrears accumulated up to the children's 18th birthdays and commences a Motion to Change within 60 days.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with disclosure orders, or alternatively, sought specific disclosure.

The respondent failed to file responding materials and did not attend the motion.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, citing the drastic nature of the remedy, the unresolved parenting component, and the need for the respondent's participation to ensure a just result.

Instead, the court ordered the respondent to provide extensive financial and medical disclosure within 60 days, including corporate tax information for a company he directs, and information about his wife's income.

The applicant was granted leave to renew the motion to strike if the respondent fails to comply with the new disclosure order.

Costs submissions were also ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for alleged breaches of an access order concerning their child, specifically regarding the commencement of overnight access.

The applicant also sought make-up access and police enforcement.

The court found that while the respondent had disobeyed the order by delaying overnight access, her actions were not deliberate and wilful due to ambiguity in the original order regarding "proof" of a crib or toddler bed.

Consequently, the contempt motion was dismissed.

However, the court varied the access order to expedite the commencement of overnight access and provide the applicant with make-up parenting time.

The parties separated after a 15-year cohabitation.

The applicant sought an equalization payment, ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support, and the sale of a jointly owned cottage.

The respondent sought a retroactive decrease in support, claiming overpayment, and requested the cottage be transferred to him.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment of voluntary support.

Notably, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to order the sale or transfer of the cottage because it was located on leased First Nations reserve land governed by the Indian Act.

An equalization payment of $4,397.50 was ordered in favour of the applicant.

This is a costs endorsement following an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody and access in a mobility context.

The Respondent was successful at trial, having met or exceeded her Offer to Settle, which presumptively entitled her to costs.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs of $35,206.50.

The Applicant argued for no costs or nominal costs, citing the inherent difficulty of mobility cases and his precarious financial circumstances.

The Court found the Respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and that success was not divided.

However, considering the unique challenges of mobility disputes, the Applicant's reasonable pursuit of the status quo, and his precarious financial situation, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 24(11)(f) to mitigate the costs award.

The parties separated and initially shared parenting of their two children in Hamilton.

The mother subsequently moved to Brampton and sought sole custody and primary residence, while the father sought joint custody and to maintain the shared parenting schedule in Hamilton.

The court found that the mother had always been the primary caregiver and that the father required significant third-party assistance to manage his parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the relocation principles from Gordon v. Goertz, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother in Brampton, with the father having parenting time three weekends out of four and mid-week visits.

Child support was also ordered.