Lisa Evans

The respondent father brought a motion to change custody and access orders from 2015, initially seeking custody but later withdrawing that claim and seeking increased access to the children.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that both parents had contributed to access difficulties through miscommunication and inflexibility.

The court granted the father substantially increased access including monthly weekend visits, extended holiday access, and summer access in August.

The court terminated the restraining order against the father and replaced it with a conduct order under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the mother's fear was subjective but not reasonable given the passage of time and lack of substantiated threats.

Following a focused trial on access, child support, and special expenses, the applicant sought costs of $18,000.

The court found the applicant was the successful party overall, having obtained a more favourable result on child support and special expenses than her formal offer to settle, despite mixed success on access.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $11,500, noting that costs for prior case conferences could not be claimed as they were not reserved, but allowing full recovery for steps taken after the formal offer to settle.

This judgment addresses the remaining issues following a divorce order, including equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, and payment of a Maher.

The court determined equalization payments, imputed income to the respondent for child support calculations, and ordered contributions to special expenses for post-secondary education.

The court also affirmed the enforceability of a Maher as a legal marriage contract under the Family Law Act, rejecting the respondent's Sharia Law arguments.

A costs endorsement following a motion decision in a family law matter.

The respondent (father) sought full indemnity costs of $5,798.43 after being awarded temporary custody of the parties' child and obtaining a transfer of the case to Peel.

The applicant (mother) acted in person and did not make costs submissions.

The court found that while the father was the successful party, full indemnity costs were not warranted because neither party made an offer to settle and the mother's conduct, though unreasonable, did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 60 days.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of the child with supervised access to the father, while the respondent father sought temporary custody with weekend access for the mother.

The father also brought a motion to transfer the case from Toronto to Peel.

The court found that the child had thrived in the father's primary care for several years and that the mother's allegations of abuse were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted temporary custody to the father, imposed strict conditions on the mother's access, and transferred the case to Peel where the child ordinarily resides.