Liisa Parise

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The father conceded the finding but argued that a trial was required for disposition, proposing that the child be placed in his care under a supervision order while residing with the paternal grandparents.

The court granted the finding that the child was in need of protection but concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition and access.

The court ordered a mini-trial with focused oral testimony to determine whether a supervision order or extended society care was in the child's best interests.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to seek parenting time with his child at a supervised access centre.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the father's unresolved anger issues, and sought a restraining order and child support.

Relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report and evidence of the father's past violent conduct, the court found it was not in the child's best interests to grant access at this time.

The father's motion was dismissed, access was suspended, a non-communication order was issued, and child support was ordered based on the father's fluctuating income.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an interim order to change the primary residence of the child, Jacob (age 8), from the mother in Ottawa back to him in Sudbury.

An earlier consent order allowed the mother to relocate to Ottawa for a 12-month clinical placement, with a review upon its completion or discontinuance.

The mother's university program was discontinued, but she remained in Ottawa without disclosing this to the father.

The court found sufficient material changes in circumstances to review or vary the previous order.

Based on the child's best interests, including the mother's difficulties managing the child's behaviour, her questionable judgments, and the father's stable environment and family support in Sudbury, the court ordered interim decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father.

The appellant father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The parties were divorced in Finland, where a valid child support order was previously made.

The father had abducted the children to Morocco but they were later returned to Finland.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and quashed the Ontario child support order, finding that under the Cheng v. Liu framework, the Finnish court had exclusive jurisdiction over child support because it granted the divorce and issued the initial support order.

The court noted the father's history of misleading authorities but held that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to create a competing child support order.

The appellant, G.C., appealed a lower court's dismissal of his appeal from a summary judgment motion that found his children in need of protection due to a risk of sexual harm by him under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the summary judgment procedure was suitable given the significant consequences and the appellant's inability to cross-examine affiants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motion judge and appeal judge correctly applied the summary judgment test in child protection cases, including the principles from Kawartha-Haliburton, and properly weighed the evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin brought a motion for judicial leave to withdraw its child protection application concerning the child A. The mother consented, but the father and the child's legal representative (Office of the Children's Lawyer) opposed the withdrawal.

The court considered criteria for granting leave to withdraw, including the parties' consent, reasons for withdrawal, potential prejudice, and whether the case was purely a custody dispute.

The court emphasized the statutory obligation to hold a "finding in need of protection" hearing, noting the significant delay in the case.

The court found that the society's reason for withdrawal (no present protection concern) was insufficient, especially given the father's evidence of ongoing concerns and the child's opposition to reverting to an unworkable domestic custody order.

The court dismissed the society's motion, emphasizing the need for a finding hearing to ensure the child's best interests and proper judicial oversight of child protection proceedings.

The applicant father sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' seven-year-old child, alleging the respondent mother was engaging in parental alienation and failing to ensure the child attended school.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo of joint custody with primary residence to her, arguing the child suffered from separation anxiety and struggled with the father's new family dynamics.

The court dismissed the father's contempt motions and request for sole custody, finding that while the mother needed to improve her parenting assertiveness, a dramatic change in primary residence was not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, implemented a structured access schedule, and ordered the father to pay $864 per month in child support.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a previous motion where the respondent was successful.

The respondent sought $8,954 in substantial indemnity costs, citing a Rule 18 Offer to Settle.

The applicant proposed $2,500 plus HST, arguing proportionality.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rules 18 and 24, and the three purposes of costs awards.

Finding both parties reasonable and the underlying motion not entirely avoidable due to its complexity, the court awarded the respondent $3,500 plus HST, balancing the factors of success, settlement efforts, and income disparity.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought motions to determine their four-year-old child's school enrollment, specifically choosing between a French language school in Espanola and a French immersion school in Walden.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering factors such as stability, existing bonds with family members and friends, and the parents' ability to support the child's education.

The court ultimately ruled that the child's best interests would be served by attending the French language school in Espanola, maintaining the existing shared parenting arrangement with a suggested transportation plan.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent mother to dismiss the applicant father's Motion to Change claims regarding custody and access.

The mother was successful in the summary judgment motion, which dismissed the father's claims on the basis that he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances—a prerequisite for varying custody or access orders.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $4,000 plus GST, payable within sixty days.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the applicant father's Motion to Change and for costs.

The father sought to vary custody and access provisions of orders made in 2010, 2013, and 2015.

The court found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances as required by section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father's evidence consisted primarily of one affidavit from the maternal aunt and reliance on a psychological assessment report that did not constitute proof of material change.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the father's Motion to Change was dismissed.

The applicant sought child support, beneficial ownership of a vendor take-back mortgage and an RRSP, and the release of trust funds to indemnify purchasers of the matrimonial home.

The respondent, who was self-represented and did not attend the trial, had his claims dismissed.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent for child support purposes, declared the applicant the beneficial owner of the mortgage and RRSP, and ordered the release of trust funds.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondent's dishonest conduct and unreasonable litigation approach.

In a custody and access dispute between separated parents, the court determined that joint custody should be ordered with equal shared parenting time on a week-about basis.

The applicant mother sought to increase her custodial time from the unequal arrangement established in a separation agreement executed when she was residing in Alberta.

The respondent father opposed equal shared parenting, arguing the current arrangement was working well.

The court found that the children's expressed wishes to spend more time with their mother, combined with the best interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, supported equal shared parenting despite the father's concerns about the mother's ability to assist with French homework and supervision.

A ruling on costs following a motion to vary parental access.

The applicant mother sought to relocate from Ontario to Alberta with the parties' two children to join her new partner who had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation to preserve his existing access regime.

The court allowed the mother's motion to vary access to accommodate the relocation.

Subsequently, the parties negotiated a new access arrangement and child support adjustment.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on her success on the dominant mobility issue and a formal offer to settle.

The father opposed costs or sought only partial indemnity recovery, arguing the case did not lend itself to settlement given the binary nature of the mobility issue.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis at a reduced amount, recognizing both parties' reasonable conduct and the collaborative resolution of collateral issues post-judgment.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to change a consent order requiring payment of child and spousal support following the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The applicant alleged that a prior assault by the respondent caused injuries rendering her incapable of remunerative employment and entitling her to continued spousal support despite the short duration of the relationship.

The court held that the applicant bore the onus of establishing that her alleged incapacity was caused by the assault.

Medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the injuries were attributable to the assault or that the applicant was incapable of employment.

Child support was terminated retroactively to December 31, 2010, and spousal support was terminated effective May 31, 2013.